Could you also try to make your repository @ApplicationScoped? How can i run your tests? I don't like to install a AS or database ;)
2017-06-08 13:28 GMT+02:00 Schäfer, Johannes <[email protected]>: > Same with a locally compile version. > Mysql: > ____________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > _____________________________ > | | iter 10 | iter 20 | iter 40 | iter 80 | iter 160 | > iter 320 | iter 640 | iter 1280 | iter 2560 | iter 5120 | iter > 10240 | > |=========================================================== > ============================================================ > =============================| > | DS| 0.028479446| 0.088102335| 0.138260967| 0.255074252| 0.385907351| > 0.734428279| 1.836123535| 4.125717222| 6.175937816| 13.217757392| > 25.372525787| > | EM| 0.010955534| 0.020851247| 0.041094277| 0.076565573| 0.195617863| > 0.386509868| 0.812829151| 1.4044238 | 3.007676477| 6.232350452 | > 11.726264467| > > Grüße > Johannes > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Andraschko [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 1:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Performance of DeltaSpike Data > > please build DS from source, i don't think that SNAPSHOT is up to date. > > 2017-06-08 13:05 GMT+02:00 Schäfer, Johannes <[email protected]>: > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for your great support. Now I had the time to run the tests. > > Unfortunately no improvement. :-( > > I used Mysql and H2 and both still have a significant difference. > > mysql: > > ____________________________________________________________ > > ____________________________________________________________ > > _____________________________ > > | | iter 10 | iter 20 | iter 40 | iter 80 | iter 160 | > > iter 320 | iter 640 | iter 1280 | iter 2560 | iter 5120 | iter > > 10240 | > > |=========================================================== > > ============================================================ > > =============================| > > | DS| 0.042993818| 0.070756327| 0.139015158| 0.249963317| 0.489673972| > > 1.000932095| 1.418196146| 3.396942334| 6.268094687| 12.142304859| > > 24.631240985| > > | EM| 0.016741971| 0.034018415| 0.042539175| 0.097203944| 0.15662194 | > > 0.32694476 | 0.665341891| 1.582051703| 2.602520533| 5.710082816 | > > 10.856276852| > > > > h2: > > ____________________________________________________________ > > ____________________________________________________________ > > __________________________ > > | | iter 10 | iter 20 | iter 40 | iter 80 | iter 160 | > > iter 320 | iter 640 | iter 1280 | iter 2560 | iter 5120 | iter > 10240 | > > |=========================================================== > > ============================================================ > > ==========================| > > | DS| 0.007259847| 0.009839833| 0.024182004| 0.040194493| 0.037355253| > > 0.038992501| 0.15695646| 0.157184542| 0.277937182| 0.575950893| > > 0.848326297| > > | EM| 7.12756E-4 | 7.15797E-4 | 0.0035079 | 0.001897262| 0.003144109| > > 0.007000594| 0.01269694| 0.024183904| 0.037443446| 0.108577248| > > 0.217664259| > > > > I used version 1.8.1-SNAPSHOT for testing. > > See https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_ > > cdi_jpa_data_ds_project_template > > > > Grüße > > Johannes > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Andraschko [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 10:36 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Performance of DeltaSpike Data > > > > I did a major improvement and in my tests, both plain JPA and DS Data > > are now very similar. > > Would be great if you could provide the new numbers. > > > > 2017-06-07 14:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko > > <[email protected] > > >: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > could you please try to run your test again against the github master? > > > I already did a small improvement and refactored a little bit on the > > > weekend. > > > > > > 2017-06-06 8:54 GMT+02:00 Schäfer, Johannes <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> So after the a long weekend, I'm back with my results. > > >> For the write, findByPK and findAll tests I get now good numbers. > > >> See: > > >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_ > > >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/ > > >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/SaveTest.java > > >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_ > > >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/ > > >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/ReadTest.java > > >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_ > > >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/ > > >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/ReadAllTest.java > > >> > > >> The difference between delta spike and plain EM are just a few > > >> percent, in both directions ;-) . > > >> > > >> But I wrote a new test case were I try to find entities by an query. > > >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_ > > >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/ > > >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/ReadQueryTest.java > > >> So I compare > > >> TypedQuery< Material > query = eml.createQuery( > > >> "SELECT m FROM Material m WHERE grade = :grade AND > > >> width = :width AND thickness = :thickness", > > >> Material.class ); > > >> query.setParameter( "grade", "AAA" ); > > >> query.setParameter( "width", 5 ); > > >> query.setParameter( "thickness", 5. ); List< Material > > > >> mats = query.getResultList(); > > >> > > >> to > > >> List< Material > mats = matRepo.findByGradeAndWidthAndThickness( > > >> "AAA", 5, 5. ); > > >> > > >> Here again the difference is quite high. > > >> | | iter 10 | iter 20 | iter 40 | iter 80 | iter 160 | > > >> iter 320 | iter 640 | iter 1280 | iter 2560 | iter 5120 | iter > > >> 10240 | > > >> |=========================================================== > > >> ============================================================ > > >> =============================| > > >> | DS| 0.03988012 | 0.151870613| 0.144881044| 0.270389952| > > >> | DS| 0.526700787| > > >> 1.023574545| 1.806960223| 3.426772405| 6.969935385| 13.963582543| > > >> 26.785764953| > > >> | EM| 0.010984804| 0.021940339| 0.059921297| 0.087386918| > > >> | EM| 0.171045079| > > >> 0.375059016| 0.747171594| 1.560946145| 2.968347174| 6.446844753 | > > >> 12.361550486| > > >> > > >> So as you can see the DeltaSpike implementation needs at least the > > >> double amount of time. > > >> > > >> Any hints for improving the performance? > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Johannes > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Schäfer, Johannes [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:27 PM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: RE: Performance of DeltaSpike Data > > >> > > >> Right. Copy and paste error. > > >> I added also a flush to the EM test. > > >> Now I have similar numbers. > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> ______________________________ > > >> | | iter 10 | iter 20 | iter 40 | iter 80 | iter 160 | > > >> iter 320 | iter 640 | iter 1280 | iter 2560 | iter 5120 | iter > > >> 10240 | > > >> |================================================================== > > >> |== > > >> |=== > > >> |================================================================== > > >> |== > > >> |=== > > >> |=======| > > >> | DS| 0.001588214| 0.004130191| 0.007351854| 0.014062036| > > >> | DS| 0.048373222| 0.593463008| 0.741351593| 1.697058004| > > >> | DS| 6.049719288| 34.101109279| 101.589077365| > > >> | EM| 0.001385601| 0.002662861| 0.004092937| 0.108730649| > > >> | EM| 0.046299193| 0.106900289| 0.461147505| 1.688040769| > > >> | EM| 5.960683928| 25.604583163| 106.688041149| > > >> > > >> It's a little bit strange for me, why I have to compare > > >> EntityPersistenceRepository.save with a em.persist + em.flush. I > > >> would expect that an simple EntityPersistenceRepository.save don't > > >> have a flush (there is a separate EntityPersistenceRepository. > > saveAndFlush). > > >> > > >> When I do a run with EntityPersistenceRepository.saveAndFlush I get > > >> the following numbers. > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > >> ______________________________ > > >> | | iter 10 | iter 20 | iter 40 | iter 80 | iter 160 | > > >> iter 320 | iter 640 | iter 1280 | iter 2560 | iter 5120 | iter > > >> 10240 | > > >> |================================================================== > > >> |== > > >> |=== > > >> |================================================================== > > >> |== > > >> |=== > > >> |=======| > > >> | DS| 0.001703015| 0.003457728| 0.008079817| 0.019099994| > > >> | DS| 0.053865065| 0.940319597| 0.643245399| 2.292716685| > > >> | DS| 9.902395587| 40.84301017 | 172.179435413| > > >> | EM| 0.001677545| 0.004168205| 0.005779986| 0.014491211| > > >> | EM| 0.031066334| 0.110747277| 0.4051742 | 1.925682412| > > >> | EM| 5.842606084| 23.540393571| 132.817886521| > > >> > > >> So I have the feeling that there is still something wrong. > > >> > > >> Thanks to Gerhard for his additional hints. > > >> I committed all changes to the github repo. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Johannes > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 1:21 PM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: Performance of DeltaSpike Data > > >> > > >> @johannes: > > >> as mentioned yesterday you have to move EntityTransaction#begin and > > >> EntityTransaction#commit into the for-loop. > > >> > > >> regards, > > >> gerhard > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2017-06-01 12:58 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko > > >> <[email protected] > > >> >: > > >> > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > ~1 year ago i did many optimizations in the data module and AFAIR > > >> > DS Data was only a little bit slower. > > >> > After i compared my testcase with a benchmark from a user, the > > >> > big different came from the transaction handling which was > > >> > different in both testcases. > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > Thomas > > >> > > > >> > 2017-06-01 12:33 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > >> > > hi johannes, > > >> > > > > >> > > after refactoring your initial code to ds-test-control i saw e.g. > > >> > > ~6s vs 7,5s for 2560 iterations. > > >> > > i'll compare my local version with your new version (mentioned > > >> > > in your mail). > > >> > > > > >> > > regards, > > >> > > gerhard > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2017-06-01 11:35 GMT+02:00 Schäfer, Johannes <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > My company is thinking about using DeltaSpike Data. But > > >> > > > before we integrate this into our development I was asked to > > >> > > > prepare some > > >> > > benchmarks, > > >> > > > comparing the usage of DeltaSpike Data with the usage of a > > >> > > > plain EntityManager. > > >> > > > I prepared some benchmarks and I was surprised that there is > > >> > > > a big difference in the write performance. I already got some > > >> > > > hints in the > > >> > > delta > > >> > > > spike irc channel, but the performance is still bad. > > >> > > > Based on a template from os890 I implemented my tests and > > >> > > > prepared a github project. > > >> > > > https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_ > > >> > cdi_jpa_data_ds_project_ > > >> > > > template > > >> > > > Basically I'm talking about this test: > > >> > > > https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_ > > >> > cdi_jpa_data_ds_project_ > > >> > > > template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/metals/futurelab/ > > >> > > > repo/benchmark/SaveTest.java > > >> > > > > > >> > > > It just saves an entity into a DB in a loop. Depending of the > > >> > > > number of iterations the difference is quite big. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > SaveTest > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> > > > _____________________________ > > >> > > > | | iter 10 | iter 20 | iter 40 | iter 80 | iter > 160 > > >> | > > >> > > > iter 320 | iter 640 | iter 1280 | iter 2560 | iter 5120 > | > > >> iter > > >> > > > 10240 | > > >> > > > |=========================================================== > > >> > > > ============================================================ > > >> > > > =============================| > > >> > > > | DS| 0.004911746| 0.03597043 | 0.015765787| 0.016966639| > > >> > > > | DS| 0.043319612| > > >> > > > 0.281807839| 1.308948835| 1.370535533| 8.186996818| > > >> > > > 20.920141274| 93.631768475| > > >> > > > | EM| 0.004557839| 0.003256631| 0.005775416| 0.004834958| > > >> > > > | EM| 0.028243393| > > >> > > > 0.035484616| 0.038600595| 0.088904458| 0.339158674| > > >> > > > 0.745850523 > > >> > > > | > > >> > > > 0.853543234 | > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Also the difference between a run with 5120 and 10240 > > >> > > > iteration is not just the double amount of time, it is more > > >> > > > than 4 times > > more. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Do you have some hints to me what I'm doing wrong there? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Regards > > >> > > > Johannes > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
