Hi, I think before we try to fix the issue, we need to really understand what the problem is. A simple, reproducible test case that includes a micro-benchmark, and optionally uses the profiler tool would be nice. I'm very hesitant to change the storage layer just because we *think* there is way to improve performance.
Regards, Thomas On Monday, July 9, 2012, Noel Grandin wrote: > You know, if the readFully() really is the bottleneck, we should just > cache this information. > We only need one bit per page, so it seems pretty cheap to me. > We can just keep another BitField like the "freed" bitfield and save on > doing an expensive read. > > > On 2012-07-09 10:32, Steve McLeod wrote: > > Hmm, I started looking at the async write approach, then realised that the > bottleneck is with reading, not writing. It's the "readFully" that is the > culprit. Any suggestions? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "H2 Database" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'h2-database%[email protected]');>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
