I've just created the following class:
public class Foo
{
public virtual Guid Id { get; set; }
public virtual int A { get; set; }
public virtual string B { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime C { get; set; }
}
I mapped it with ConfORM without customizations, and inserted 100,000
records on it.
Then, I tested it with the following code:
using (var session = sessionFactory.Open*Stateless*Session())
using (var tx = session.BeginTransaction())
{
var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
session.CreateCriteria<Foo>().List();
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.Elapsed);
tx.Commit();
}
When using an ISession, it takes a little over 4 seconds. With
IStatelessSession, it takes a little *below* 4 seconds.
How are you measuring the time?
What is the mapping for ApprovedClaim?
Diego
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 09:13, Henning <[email protected]> wrote:
> Diego,
>
> I did provide some code, code that I thought was relevant. I could
> however create some demo code for you if that will help. That said,
> the case is really simple. Given the session factory provided in my
> first post I compared the same query,
> session.CreateCriteria<ApprovedClaim>().List() with both stateless and
> statefull sessions. It is in fact a simple select * from approvedclaim
> query which is relatively fast.
>
>
> Fabio,
>
> Are you talking about MultiCriteria? If so, that shouldn't be really
> relevant for our case because we issue one simple query that returns a
> bunch of results
> It looks as if the deserialization of the stateless session is
> different and slower (by 30-50%).
>
>
> That said, we've seen this problem all over our code. Queries that are
> run on stateless sessions are up to 30-50% slower that the
> counterpart, so it isn't related to just one query. That leads me to
> think that either we've configured NHibernate wrong, or the stateless
> deserialization is different.
>
>
>
> On 7 Jul, 00:21, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > have a look to the batcher ;)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Henning <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I tried using NH Prof but with no luck. I couldn't get any clear
> > > answer as to why stateless sessions are slower.
> >
> > > In fact, you'd think that stateless sessions would be much faster
> > > since NHibernate doesn't track them. Means less overhead and faster
> > > code.
> >
> > > Henning
> >
> > > On 6 Jul, 02:51, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Only a profiler can tell you where/how the time is being spent
> > > differently.
> > > > No psychics here.
> >
> > > > Diego
> >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 07:41, Henning <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > The query looks like this
> > > > > session.CreateCriteria<ApprovedClaim>().List();
> >
> > > > > i.e, nothing advanced.
> >
> > > > > Does anybody know why this is happening?
> >
> > > > > Henning
> >
> > > > > On 5 Jul, 12:40, Henning <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi
> >
> > > > > > We've noticed that when doing bulk loads with stateless session,
> our
> > > > > > performance actually goes down when I'd expect it to go up. (I
> know
> > > > > > nhibernate is not made for bulk loads).
> >
> > > > > > Our sessionfactory setup looks like this,
> >
> > > > > > var factory = Fluently.Configure()
> >
> > >
> .Database(MsSqlConfiguration.MsSql2008.ConnectionString(Config.ConnectionString))
> > > > > > .ExposeConfiguration(c =>
> > > > > > {
> > > > > >
> c.SetProperty("current_session_context_class",
> > > > > > "call");
> > > > > > c.SetProperty("adonet.batch_size", "1");
> > > > > > c.EventListeners.PreInsertEventListeners =
> new
> > > > > > IPreInsertEventListener[] { new EntitySaveEventListener() };
> > > > > > c.EventListeners.PreUpdateEventListeners =
> new
> > > > > > IPreUpdateEventListener[] { new EntitySaveEventListener() };
> > > > > > c.Interceptor = new Interceptor();
> > > > > > })
> > > > > > .Mappings(m =>
> > > > > > m.FluentMappings.AddFromAssemblyOf<CompanyMap>())
> > > > > > .BuildSessionFactory();
> >
> > > > > > return factory;
> >
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > Groups
> > > > > "nhusers" group.
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]>
> <nhusers%[email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]>
> >
> > > <nhusers%[email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]>
> <nhusers%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
> >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > "nhusers" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]>
> <nhusers%[email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]>
> >
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
> >
> > --
> > Fabio Maulo
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nhusers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<nhusers%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en.
