Hi, >From the H2 performance page I expected 10x the postgres performance. >
I'm sorry if the performance page makes you think H2 is 10x faster than PostgreSQL across the board. That's not what I want it to look like. The reason why H2 embedded could run 10 times more operations within the same time than PostgreSQL is because the operations in the benchark were quite simply. I will change the documentation to say: "Please note this is mostly a single connection benchmark run on one computer, *with many very simple operations running against the database. This benchmark does not include very complex queries. The embedded mode of H2 is faster than the client-server mode because the per-statement overhead is greatly reduced.*" One reason why PostgreSQL is faster than H2 is that in this case, H2 stored the result set in a temporary table (TEMP_RESULT_SET_34). The reason is that the result set is large. Large result sets is an area where H2 is relatively weak I'm afraid. Another possible explanation why PostgreSQL is that much faster than H2 is that maybe PostgreSQL has the data in the cache, while maybe H2 (embedded mode) not; but I'm not sure. 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.
