to what you tested with Firebird. I got around 28 tx/sec with 8 threads. Have
you got chance to run your test on Linux?
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 10:40:04 +0200
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird
On 15-6-2016 17:55, chen hsu chen...@outlook.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> Thanks, Helen. Please see my replies inline.
>
> I am sure it is not 3.0 specific, 2.5 is the same. and the main issue is
> scalability, sequential transaction performance is actually pretty good,
> comparable to ESE
: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0 embedded on
linux
---In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, <chenxuz@...> wrote :
> yes, one connection per database, any thread needs to access this database
> would
>
---In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
> yes, one connection per database, any thread needs to access this database
> would
> create its own transaction.
Then you have serialization at connection level. Both engine and remote layer
doesn't allow to run more than
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0
embedded on linux
Thanks, Helen. Please see my replies inline.
I am sure it is not 3.0 specific, 2.5 is the same. and the main issue is
scalability, sequential transaction performance is actually pretty good
Hi,
do you mean that you share one connection between multiple threads?
regards,
Karol Bieniaszewski
From: mailto:firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 5:55 PM
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0
thread measures its own
elapsed time.
To: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
From: firebird-support@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:04:33 +1200
Subject: Re: [firebird-support] performance issue with firebird 3.0 embedded on
linux
Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 5:58:39 PM, Karol B. wrote:
> test without details say nothing to me
> 1. Did you compare results with e.g. FB2.5 in on the same maschine with same
> configuration (FBConfig)
> 2. What is your page size and type of HDD?
> 3. Do you have BOST feature enabled on CPU and
Hi,
test without details say nothing to me
1. Did you compare results with e.g. FB2.5 in on the same maschine with same
configuration (FBConfig)
2. What is your page size and type of HDD?
3. Do you have BOST feature enabled on CPU and HT?
4. Did you compare results on GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE - i