Re: [OJB-developers] "performance" target results against MySql

[Jakob B. <jbr...@ho...>]

hi,

here are my performance results against mysql and ms-access.
where do you get the jdbc-results from ?

jakob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Mahler" <tho...@ho...>
To: "Ricardo Argüello" <ri...@ya...>
Cc: "Florian Bruckner" <bf...@fl...>; "ojb"
<obj...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] "performance" target results against MySql


> Hi Ricardo,
>
> <snip>
>
> Your performance results look really bad. To give you an impression that
>   this is not typical for OJB I have attached a zipped html document
> containing 3 tables.
> The tables contain:
> 1. your testresults
> 2. my test against MS Access
> 3. my test against HSQLDB
>
> The Result for HSQLDB are a bit distorted as HSQBL does most things
> inmemory. That's why it is so fast. But that's also why the OJB version
> is not that much slower (in absolute numbers) but the ratio is still 45%
>
> For MS-Access you see a more "classic" OJB effect. Native JDBC is not
> very fast. OJB is slower. But at a very reasonable ratio: 19%
>
> My experience with DB2 and ORACLE are similar, but I currently have no
> numbers available.
>
> That's why I'm really shocked by your tests.
>
>
> I have only a few possible explanations:
> 1. There have been changes between 0.7.314 (the version I used) and
> 0.7.343 (your version) that had major impacts on performance. I had some
> few runs on my machine that show that this isn't the case.
>
> 2. The JDBC driver. People have often told me how fast MySql is. But
> when I see the results of your native JDBC tests I think it's rather
slow...
> Maybe that other internal problems of the MYSQL JDBC driver lead to such
> exorbitant results.
> Maybe OJB uses certain features that are not well supported.
>
> Maybe it's a good idea to share experiences with other MYSQL / OJB users
> to share their findings and insights. Everyone is invited to post his
> performance test results!
>
> I am a bit surprised about the bad performance for primary key based
> look up (querying1 and 2). Are you sure there is a primary key defined
> for the table ?
>
> 3. OJB has become slow. As you can see from my tables OJB is not "slow"
> in general. OJB has been carefully performance tuned in the past.
> But we have implemented a lot of new features that almost all have
> performance impacts.
>
> After finishing all 1.0 features I want to have a complete code
> walkthrough to implement performance improvements.
>
>
> >
> >
> > The results show that direct JDBC is 62.7% faster than OJB (against
MySql):
> >
> >       [ojb] Time: 1,393.023
> >      [jdbc] Time: 874.658
> >
> >
> > I think I found my problem....
> >
> > :-(
> >
>
>
>
> Mh, as mentioned above I don't believe that OJB is the only problem.
>
> I'd like to discuss about aceptable performance. Which factor would be
> acceptable for you.
> (For me even the native JDBC variant is definitely too slow).
> 20%, 40% ?
>
> It's absolutely clear that an O/R layer (regardless which concrete
> product) *will allways* be slower as handcoded JDBC.
>
> You get a lot of programming ease and pay it with performance. Period.
> Of course we will work hard to minimize this overhead.
>
> I have written the performance testsuite to make people aware of the
> performance impact they have for their specific environment.
>
> I'm planning to provide a document on the performance TestSuite to help
> people understand all the numbers.
>
> best regards,
>
> Thomas
>