Hi Craig,
Hi,
It might be worthwhile looking at the JDO_Test method where the PMF is
acquired. Perhaps a static Map that holds the PMF between tests would
work. The thing to watch for is to make sure that the PMF that's cached
fully meets the requirements of the Properties/Map that is being used.
There is some logic there.
Isn't there an issue at pmf.close()? After each test method, pmf.close()
is called. We would have to avoid that closed pmf instances are in the
cache. But it would not make sense to remove the pmf instance from the
cache, because then it would be empty.
Does this mean, you would not close the pmf?
Regards,
Michael
I think that for most cases in the tck, the identical Properties is
being passed in and maybe all we need is to have JDO_Test make a copy of
the PMF properties and a reference to the PMF and if the properties
matches the cached Properties, return the cached PMF.
We need to make sure that this doesn't interfere with the PMF that uses
a different Properties by design.
Craig
On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Michael Watzek wrote:
Hi Karan,
Hi Michael,
I have noticed one thing in the tests. The BatchTestRunner creates a
new object for each TestCase and then calls the test() method. Since
each one of them inherits the pmf instance variable, dont you think
that with each test we are trying to get a new pmf and that initiates
creation of a new pool of connections. This might be the reason
connection pooling is slower than running tests without connection
pooling. That 10% of overhead when we run tests with connection
pooling, is in my opinion the time taken to create that pool (thats
what it looks like when i looked at the JPOX RDBMS log earlier).
Right! Each test method calls the JDO implementation returning a pmf
instance. Finally, the test method calls pmf.close() and nullifies the
variable holding the pmf instance.
Provided, that each getPMF() call creates a new pmf instance, then we
do not benefit from connetion pooling because the pool is bound to a
pmf instance (as you mentioned above). That's what we see when we run
TCK20 with JPOX.
However, a JDO implementation may return the same pmf instance if you
pass the same properties to getPMF in subsequent calls. Such
implementations would benefit from connection pooling when they are
called by TCK20.
Regards,
Michael
I might be wrong, because i havent had the time to understand the
JDO_Test class fully. If I am wrong, then I think it might be worth a
try to increase the connection pool size a little bit, just to see if
it speeds up the tests.
I will try it and let you know. Thanks for the info on c3p0 properties.
Karan Singh
Senior Technical Consultant
Learnquest
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Watzek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 9/19/2005 8:26 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: connection pool settings for c3p0
Hi Karan,
up to now there is no file "c3p0.properties". Thus, we run C3P0 using
the default configuration. Do you think we can benefit from changing
the default? The right place for such a file would be under test/conf.
Regards,
Michael
Where are we doing connection pool settings for c3p0? I couldnt find
the c3p0.properties file anywhere
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Watzek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Buelowstr. 66
Tel.: ++49/30/235 520 36 10783 Berlin - Germany
Fax.: ++49/30/217 520 12 http://www.spree.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Watzek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Buelowstr. 66
Tel.: ++49/30/235 520 36 10783 Berlin - Germany
Fax.: ++49/30/217 520 12 http://www.spree.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
