-Brian
On Apr 13, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Oleg Nitz wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 15:17, Brian McCallister wrote:Have I missed something? Are there any new performance tests?Huh, the ODMG slower thing is interesting as Armin just reemed us all out for letting the OTM get so much slower than ODMG ;-)
Armin emailed the -dev list a few days back =)
When I tested last time, OTM was somewhat faster.
Of course, when you use OTM PB-style Criteria/Queries instead of ODMG-style
OQLQueries, the difference would be more noticeable.
But don't forget that OTM provides true ACID transactions, pessimistic and
optimistic locking strategies (automatic upgrading of read lock to write lock
for modified objects) and some other nice features like automatic storing of
object modifications (for modified objects only), automatic creation/deletion
of otm-dependent objects, long transactions support.
So I guess OTM may be slower in some tests, especially when you run them
against in-memory database like HSQL.
Completely agree.but it is a little bit less than mature at the moment. It is definately in the unstable category for 1.0.
Oleg is in the process of doing a major factoring job on parts of it toThe refactoring is now finished, and the bug that you mentioned is now fixed,
clean it up and fix a couple bugs (otm-dependent proxied collections
not detecting deletes unless an explicit write lock is obtained on the
parent is a particularly unpleasant one for me).
at least according to my tests. Please re-run your tests.
Many thanks to you and to all who try OTM, test OTM and report bugs! ;-)
Regards, Oleg
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
