On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Müller <thomas.muel...@day.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have some early performance test results: There is a test with 3 > levels of child nodes (each node 20 children) > (TestSimple.createReadNodes). > > With the JDBC storage and the H2 database, this is about 14 times > faster than the Jackrabbit 2.0 trunk (0.2 seconds versus 2.9 seconds > for Jackrabbit 2.0). This is after 3 test runs. The storage space > usage is about 1/3 (2.8 MB for the prototype versus 9.5 MB for > Jackrabbit 2.0).
sorry, but i doubt that the results of this comparison is any way significant. jackrabbit is the reference implementation of JCR 1.0/2.0 and therefore has to fully support all the spec'ed features (node types, same name siblings, locking, access control, etc etc). the protoype in its current state deliberately ommits most of those 'features' which makes the comparison somehow unfair. i don't doubt that the prototype is on the right track and that the resulting implementation will indeed provide significant performance gains. i just think that making such claims at this early stage is a bit premature. cheers stefan > > Regards, > Thomas >
