Hi, When I tried, H2 was about double as fast as HSQLDB. See http://www.h2database.com/html/performance.html#poleposition_benchmark - I run the test again today and got this result:
Overall time taken - HSQLDB: 155'263ms - H2: 71'275ms There are a few problems with the PolePosition test: * HSQLDB uses in-memory tables by default while H2 uses persistent tables. The HSQLDB version included in PolePosition does not support changing this, so you need to replace poleposition-0.20/lib/hsqldb.jar with a newer version (for example hsqldb-1.8.0.7.jar), and then use the setting hsqldb.connecturl=jdbc:hsqldb:file:data/hsqldb/dbbench2;hsqldb.default_table_type=cached;sql.enforce_size=true in Jdbc.properties. * HSQLDB keeps the database open between tests, while H2 closes the database (losing all the cache). To change that, use the database URL jdbc:h2:file:data/h2/dbbench;DB_CLOSE_DELAY=-1 * The amount of cache memory is quite important, specially for the PolePosition test. Unfortunately, the PolePosition test does not take this into account. I will add this section to the docs. Regards, Thomas On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Mike Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you using the default in memory tables for HSQLDB? > > (In which case its not a like for like comparison as your HSQLDB will > have O(n) memory requirements). > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Brish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> In the H2 benchmark it looks like H2 is significantly faster than >> HSQLDB. >> >> In the poleposition benchmark it looks like HSQLDB is significantly >> faster then H2. >> >> > >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
