Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I ran a simple test of executing VALUES 1 using a prepared statement > over the network server in auto-commit mode. 10.3 seemed to be the > same performance as 10.2, maybe up to 4% slower. The 10.2 numbers for > me were consistent, but the 10.3 numbers seemed to vary from 96% to > 100% of the 10.2 numbers.
I see a similar performance drop (see attached PDF file). (The variablility seems to be about the same though). > I was actually surprised because I thought I seen some claims of much > faster performance with 10.3 server. > > I was getting around 1,630 transactions per second (each transaction > is a VALUES 1 statement) on a 100Mbit network. > > Did anyone make changes in 10.3 that they think would make this simple > test improve, or is anyone working on reducing the basic overhead for > client server? > Are the nio changes intended to improve performance? If you're referring to Knut's work I think the answer is yes, but initially he could not see much improvement. (Knut is on vacation for the next 3 weeks and may not read derby-dev mail that often). -- dt
regression.pdf
Description: Perf comparison 10.2 - 10.3
