I also took a quick look and it appears that this is another out of the box test. Caching would probably bridge the gap between us and Hibernate... also I'm not sure they are running with the auto connection pooling stuff Donald has been working on.
Thanks, Rick On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Kevin Sutter <[email protected]> wrote: > Although this "benchmark" is obviously biased, it's still good to be > reminded of potential pitfalls and/or inconsistencies. For example, I took > a quick look at one set of results and it seems to indicate a repeating > issue with obtaining a primary key sequence from the OpenJPA sequence > table. This could be a problem with the application, or it could be a > problem with the OpenJPA processing. Digging in a bit on these type of > issues would probably be worthwhile. > > But, spending a lot of time attempting to match the results of ObjectDB is > probably not that interesting... > > Kevin > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Georgi Naplatanov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi gkorland. > > > > Do not trust on this tests. It is better to make your own test and then > > decide which implementation is good for you. > > > > My testing indicates that OpenJPA (with or without cache) is faster than > > Hibernate on mostly write and less read operations. > > > > On read operation probably all JPA implementation are very close due the > > cache. > > > > Best regards > > Georgi > > > > > > gkorland wrote: > > > >> Did anyone review the JPAB (http://www.jpab.org/) results? It seems > like > >> all the other JPA guys are running faster and even better... > >> > > > > >
