Hi,For testing purposes of Jackrabbit I (in fact we :)) have used attached classes and some junk-XML documents of size 4715740 B, testing eXist was not so complex, as we used provided by authors of eXist demo application and imported same files in same procedure as we did for Jackrabbit. Report on Jackrabbit performance can be found in this mailing archive, and results achieved in eXist - I don't have a formal report on it now - but you can easily reproduce those tests. Jackrabbit performance report was based on Jackrabbit v. 1.1.1, after that we relaunched tests again, based on the same procedure and Jackrabbit v. 1.2.1 - results were better ca. 20% - in fact tests should now be relaunched because of bundle persistence manager.
Looking forward for your reply :) BR, Marcin Nowak Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi, On 4/23/07, Marcin Nowak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:But that is not the point :) anyone have an idea how to configure Jackrabbit to perform like eXist?Let's see how well we can do. Given a quick look it seems that eXist will certainly beat Jackrabbit in the performance comparison, but I'd be interested in seeing how close we can get and what are the limiting factors we face.Could you share the test code you are using for both eXist and Jackrabbit?BR, Jukka Zitting
Tests.rar
Description: Binary data
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
