2009/3/11 Jan Kotek <[email protected]> > > Hi Thomas, > > Load position is right. > > FileChannel is safe, but I would strongly discurage to put > MappedByteBuffer as default implementation in next 10 years :-) > > I run your complete benchmarks and can confirm that both NIO > implementations are slower. Maybe on other OS (I have winXP) it will > be faster.
I think you misread the benchmarks? Or perhaps I do :-) But Thomas wrote: > > Statements per second: 68628 (regular) > > Statements per second: 76598 (NIO mapped, with mapped.load()) > > Statements per second: 83756 (NIO mapped, without mapped.load()) > > Statements per second: 83031 (NIO channel) So since we are talking statements per second the NIO channel mode is about 20% faster than the current H2. > I wrote this patch with intention to rewrite H2 SQL to Kilim Java > microthreads. (something like Actors in Scala or Erlang). H2 in this > case would use async IO and would be able to fetch more pages at same > time. > If you want take look at Kilim and sample http server. > > http://www.malhar.net/sriram/kilim/ > http://www.kotek.net/asynchttpd Very interesting! Thanks for the links! -- Cheers, Mikkel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
