Hi, >> 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)
This was on Mac OS, so NIO is faster on a Mac. On Windows XP, I get different results: Regular is about 54000, NIO is about 50000. So on Windows, NIO is slower. On Windows XP, I couldn't even test NIO mapped, because it runs out of memory. Regards, Thomas --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
