openjpa-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Bauer <techhu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JPAB results
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 14:45:04 GMT
It looks like benchmark is configured to use openjpa-all-2.0.0 so it
wouldn't be using auto-enablement of DBCP.  The auto-enablement wasn't
available until recently in openjpa-all-2.1.0-SNAPSHOT.  I scanned some of
the benchmark config files and they are using direct-to-DB jdbc URL's, so
nor does it look like pooling is explicitly enabled.  Like so many other
JSE-based benchmarks, I think we'd see more favorable OpenJPA results with
connection pooling.

-Jeremy

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Rick Curtis <curtisr7@gmail.com> wrote:

> I also took a quick look and it appears that this is another out of the box
> test. Caching would probably bridge the gap between us and Hibernate...
> also
> I'm not sure they are running with the auto connection pooling stuff Donald
> has been working on.
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Although this "benchmark" is obviously biased, it's still good to be
> > reminded of potential pitfalls and/or inconsistencies.  For example, I
> took
> > a quick look at one set of results and it seems to indicate a repeating
> > issue with obtaining a primary key sequence from the OpenJPA sequence
> > table.  This could be a problem with the application, or it could be a
> > problem with the OpenJPA processing.  Digging in a bit on these type of
> > issues would probably be worthwhile.
> >
> > But, spending a lot of time attempting to match the results of ObjectDB
> is
> > probably not that interesting...
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Georgi Naplatanov <gosho@oles.biz>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi gkorland.
> > >
> > > Do not trust on this tests. It is better to make your own test and then
> > > decide  which implementation is good for you.
> > >
> > > My testing indicates that OpenJPA (with or without cache) is faster
> than
> > > Hibernate on mostly write and less read operations.
> > >
> > > On read operation probably all JPA implementation are very close due
> the
> > >  cache.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > > Georgi
> > >
> > >
> > > gkorland wrote:
> > >
> > >> Did anyone review the JPAB (http://www.jpab.org/) results? It seems
> > like
> > >> all the other JPA guys are running faster and even better...
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message