I was about to tackle the most significant performance related problem
in JAWS (see the discussion and feature request on "CMP and finders:
optimized" and "optimize collection finders", respectively)
I've been building database applications for quite a while now (damn
near the only thing i've ever done, software-wise) and am willing to
take this task on.
More comments follow in-line.
marc fleury wrote:
> OK,
>
> I now believe that I am staring at a simple fact. The PERFORMANCE IN
> CONTAINERS IS BOLONEY!
>
> Our container can run in 0.05ms (yes **m**s) and still excercise 80 of its
> features. what costs a lot is **serialization** and we find that in JDBC
> calls and network calls.
>
> It appears that our JDBC calls are not optimized at all. We know it is just
> JawsCMP but it is what people really look at when they work on JBoss. There
> are tons of optimizations such as using "raw" ids in the database (Oracle).
> The way we would work this is that we could then map the primary keys to the
> raw ID (simple map) and the lookups would be kick ass fast.
As a first step here, I'll make the 'command factory' used by JAWS for a
container configurable. This will make it easier to make DBMS specific
implementations of certain commands.
>
> I believe we also implement correctly the "isModified", but we could really
> do a "getModified" that would return the names of the modified fields. We
> could then bypass the "tuned" updates.
Personally, I'd rather keep the 'tuned' updates code, since it requires
no-more container specific code. What's done now mirrors the behavior of
Borland's CMP implementation, which is a very developer-friendly system.
What do you see that's bad in the tuned updates?
>
> Finally the load today is very blind and very stupid. We just load
> everyone. A simple implementation of the "versioning" pattern in the
> database (where we add a field that is the version of the record) enables us
> to get the right version in little time and saves us time in loading since
> we can just "select version where rawID" for example :)
This is a fine optional feature. I've implemented this in BMP beans and
it shouldn't be too hard to add.
>
> If you are interested in leading this effort and have serious db background
> please let the board know
>
> marc
>
>
> _________________
> Marc Fleury, Ph.D
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
