Hi Thomas, Wow, that was quick release :-) I am working on new patch for Soft and Weak reference cache.
Jan Thanks for credit. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Thomas Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
