I tried adding the DB_CLOSE_DELAY=-1 parameter for H2 for the poleposition test. Most the of the results are identical.
Test/Change - Melbourne write/+800 millisounds for 100000 (slower?!). - Melbourne read/+500 milliseconds for 100000. - Bahrain update/-310 milliseconds for selects 900, objects 30000, updates 100. - Bahrain delete/-300 milliseconds for selects 900, objects 30000, updates 100. - Barcelona read/+1400 milliseconds for selects 100, objects 30000 With that one change HSQLDB still beats H2 convincingly. The 1.8.x versions of HSQLDB have performance problems with cached tables. I heard it is going to be fixed in the 1.9 release. I'll try running the h2 benchmark, and the poleposition benchmark with the current development 1.9 code using cached tables to see what the results are. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
