Ah, got it, lol.

Thought it was log in automaticly  after reg.

Thanks.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:08:06 PM UTC, Oskar Berggren wrote:
>
> Never mind my last comment... But don't you have the big blue "Create 
> issue" button at the top? 
>
> /Oskar 
>
>
> 2013/1/22 Oskar Berggren <[email protected] <javascript:>>: 
> > You have to select the NHibernate project first I think. 
> > 
> > /Oskar 
> > 
> > 
> > 2013/1/22 Steven Xi <[email protected] <javascript:>>: 
> >> Do you know how can I raise an issue on https://nhibernate.jira.com? 
> >> Can't find anywhere to post/raise anything on it after login. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:05:19 AM UTC, Ricardo Peres wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> Hello, Steven! 
> >>> 
> >>> Sounds interesting! Why don't you open an improvement issue on 
> >>> https://nhibernate.jira.com? 
> >>> 
> >>> Regards, 
> >>> 
> >>> RP 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:08:24 AM UTC, Steven Xi wrote: 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I was started choosing orm systems since few weeks ago and little bit 
> >>>> struggle in use NH or EF. 
> >>>> I know there was a big argument around which one's better, which i'm 
> not 
> >>>> quite interested to discuss here, but I did test some basic 
> performance of 
> >>>> both. 
> >>>> I have to say I really like the flexibility NH provided, but I still 
> bit 
> >>>> concern about the performance, especially materialization of NH is 
> much 
> >>>> slower than EF. 
> >>>> Although I temporary chose EF as the Orm of my currently project, but 
> I 
> >>>> hope that can switch back to NH once the performance has been 
> improved. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> But, anyway, after reviewing and profile NH code for few hours, I 
> tried 
> >>>> to make some small change to improve the performance, 
> >>>> here's what I found. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> When NH materialize Linq query, it uses dynamicinvoke to construct 
> >>>> object, which is obviously slow. After change the constructor call 
> delegate 
> >>>> (both in Linq\ResultTransformer and 
> Linq\ExpressionToHqlTranslationResults) 
> >>>> from Delegate type to Func<object[],object> type ( for item 
> transformer only 
> >>>> as testing, but list transformer should be same),  the time costed 
> reduced 
> >>>> to less than 50%. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Here's some test result, retrieve 200001 rows, simple entity. 
> >>>> Entity (single table in db): 
> >>>> 
> >>>>     public class Person 
> >>>>     { 
> >>>>         [Key] 
> >>>>         public virtual int PersonId { get; protected set; } 
> >>>> 
> >>>>         [StringLength(100)] 
> >>>>         public virtual string FirstName { get; set; } 
> >>>> 
> >>>>         [StringLength(100)] 
> >>>>         public virtual string LastName { get; set; } 
> >>>>     } 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>  Query(Session is status less): 
> >>>> 
> >>>>             int agr = 0; 
> >>>>             foreach (var pp in session.Query<Person>().Where(p => 
> >>>> p.PersonId > 0) 
> >>>>                 .Select(p => new { p.PersonId, p.FirstName, 
> p.LastName 
> >>>> })) 
> >>>>             //.Take(100)) 
> >>>>             { 
> >>>>                 agr++; 
> >>>>             } 
> >>>>             return agr; 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Before changing this query took 1.2 seconds (while EF took 0.2 
> second) on 
> >>>> my machine ( SQL express, i5 3.1Ghz 4GB win7). 
> >>>> After changing this query took 0.5 to 0.6 seconds. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> This is the quick change I can discover so far. 
> >>>> Some other place I've looked is NH 's retrieve row/column data and 
> >>>> converting types designed little bit too heavy, but changing this 
> requires 
> >>>> changing the code structur, which I dont have to do yet. Something I 
> can 
> >>>> think about to be small change is it uses lots of Converto.Toxxx() 
> method 
> >>>> which I believe to be a performance impact, and also, after it do a 
> >>>> conversion (in most case is unnecessary) it do a boxing again, so 
> there's 
> >>>> some extra steps can be removed. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hope it helps. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards, 
> >>>> Steven 
> >>>> 
> >> -- 
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> >> "nhusers" group. 
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nhusers/-/mGZStPgm7MMJ. 
> >> 
> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>. 
>
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >> [email protected] <javascript:>. 
> >> For more options, visit this group at 
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"nhusers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nhusers/-/3qIac_xa3U0J.
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/nhusers?hl=en.

Reply via email to