Armin, We actually were doing something wrong with Hibernate. We found that we needed to use flush/evict because hibernate stores up the statements in java mem before running the statements, not sure why they chose to do it that way, but anyhow, after putting in flush/evict, we got the hibernate version down to something like 20 minutes, still slower than OJB :-).
I think the reason that it does take 12 minutes, is that there are 10000 parent records that all have children records which must be stored. Thanks for the response. Brian Brian McGough IU - UITS - UIS - SIT (812) 856-4871 -----Original Message----- From: Armin Waibel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:49 AM To: OJB Users List Subject: Re: OJB vs Hibernate Hi Brian, > We started out using Hibernate for this, and we found that we had some > real problems. It just would not scale whether or not we were using > transactions. We found that it would take greater than 17 hours to load > only 7500 of the records. Obviously this is unacceptable performance, > and so we thought to try the same thing using OJB. I don't want to defend Hibernate ;-), but I assume there must be something "wrong" with your setting or the way you handle it. I can't believe that OJB is 85 time faster than HB. > I am happy to report that using OJB we were able to load the whole file > of 10,000 in under 12 minutes. 12 minutes is better, but sounds slow too. Must be a really complex operation. Storing of 10000 objects should be done in a "normal" environment < 20 sec. Can you describe why it take so long in your case or describe a little bit more detailed what you are doing? regards, Armin Mcgough, Brian Joseph wrote: > All, > > I just wanted to share some data points that were recently collected > that compare OJB and Hibernate and the ability to scale with both. > > We had a data file with only 10,000 records in it that we needed to load > into our database. Typically we use our batch environment, but given > that we are a java shop now, we wanted to see if we could use java and > our ORM tool to get the job done. > > We started out using Hibernate for this, and we found that we had some > real problems. It just would not scale whether or not we were using > transactions. We found that it would take greater than 17 hours to load > only 7500 of the records. Obviously this is unacceptable performance, > and so we thought to try the same thing using OJB. > > I am happy to report that using OJB we were able to load the whole file > of 10,000 in under 12 minutes. > > In addition to this, we just recently upgraded a project from OJB 1.0 > rc2 to OJB 1.0 and I am happy to report that for that particular project > db performance was improve by a factor greater than 10. This is mostly > due to the new implementation for FieldAccess. > > I just wanted to thank the developers for their attention to detail in > regards to ensuring that the overhead above jdbc was minimal, and for > all of the tests that they have written to ensure that is the case. We > are very happy that we are still able to use ORM for this instead of > straight jdbc, because the rest of the application is written using the > ORM. > > Anyway I just wanted to share these points with the group, for those of > you that are out there and are on the sidelines as far as which > framework will scale better. > > Brian McGough > IU - UITS - UIS - SIT > (812) 856-4871 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
