Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 78909 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2010 15:29:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 2 Nov 2010 15:29:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 86078 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 2010 15:30:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openjpa-users-archive@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 85975 invoked by uid 500); 2 Nov 2010 15:30:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@openjpa.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@openjpa.apache.org Received: (qmail 85959 invoked by uid 99); 2 Nov 2010 15:30:00 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:30:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:29:54 +0000 Received: from jim.nabble.com ([192.168.236.80]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PDInl-0001jK-Hd for users@openjpa.apache.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:29:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:29:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Pinaki Poddar To: users@openjpa.apache.org Message-ID: <1288711773540-5697918.post@n2.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1288606493590-5693298.post@n2.nabble.com> <4CD00AFE.30909@oles.biz> Subject: Re: JPAB results MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org The "benchmark" quotes [1] "A huge performance gap has been detected when using simple basic entities with small transaction/retrieval size. Comparing the normalized speed of OpenJPA with MySQL database server (0.15) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with MySQL database server (8.5) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with MySQL server is 56.7 times faster than OpenJPA with MySQL server. " All the OpenJPA users out there must be real dumb and must immediately switch to something that is 56.7 times faster. Or not. When a benchmark developer reports such drastic results -- they would be better off to double-check their observations -- given that both the vendors had been in operation for quite a while and users are *not* dumb. Actually such drastic observations degrade one's confidence in these reported numbers despite of them being presented with panache. A cursory look tells that the OpenJPA tests are often failing on getting a database connection. Looks like there is no connection pooling for OpenJPA. If anyone care to run the tests (I refuse to call it a benchmark) to alley that "56.7 times slower fear", will benefit from using a connection pool [2] (please note that an auto-pooling of database connections are on the cards) [1] http://www.jpab.org/Hibernate/MySQL/server/OpenJPA/MySQL/server.html [2] http://openjpa.apache.org/faq.html#FAQ-HowdoIenableconnectionpoolinginOpenJPA%253F ----- Pinaki -- View this message in context: http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/JPAB-results-tp5693298p5697918.html Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.