I tested the latest version of h2, and the development version of hsqldb on poleposition using cached tables.
The performance for most tests is about the same except for these tests: Melboarne-read: hsqldb 8749, h2 2432 Bahrain-query_string: hsqldb 25818, h2 19015 Barcelona-write: hsqldb 5263, h2 12591 Barcelona-read: hsqldb 1874, h2 2925 Barcelona-query: hsqldb 90187, h2 8 (hsqldb lost this one badly!) Barcelona-delete: hsqldb 3977, h2 12822 When cached tables are used H2, and hsqldb get about the same same performance for most operations. There are a few areas where h2 has an advantage, and there are a few areas where hsqldb has a advantage. The only exception is h2 is significantly faster on the Barcelona-query test. When memory tables are used hsqldb beats h2 convincingly on almost every test except the Barcelona-query test. I'll have to take a peek at why the Barcelona-query test is slow for hsqldb. It might be a bug in hsqldb, or the Barcelona-query test might be doing something strange. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
