From: Elias R. <ge...@no...> - 2008-11-15 05:26:53
|
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Kevin Day <ke...@tr...> wrote: > I think that it's going to be very important to demonstrate the performance > advantages of these changes before we roll them into HEAD - especially with > the case of the tuple browser (the current API does not forbid anyone from > holding onto a tuple browser for a long period of time - if they do so, the > browser may not be valid anymore - but it wouldn't lock the tree). > I added a test that does purely reads. It runs in about 19 seconds with my changes, 24 seconds without, so about 25% faster. This is on a dual core system. Admittedly, there seems to be a bug that occurs occasionally, once in 20000-30000 reads. I still need to look at that. But there you go. >From an outsider's perspective, JDBM is a project with no significant development, with a single 1.0 release that's 3 years old. So I don't really feel like begging for inclusion of my changes. |