From: http://www.jpab.org/OpenJPA/MySQL/server/Hibernate/MySQL/server.html
Speed comparison of JPA database persistence operations (normalized score, higher is better)
3.9 | 3.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 |
1.6 | 1.6 | 0.68 | 0.72 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
3.6 | 3.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 2.5 | 2.7 |
5.6 | 5.4 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
0.68 | 1.5 | 0.57 | 1.2 | 0.63 | 1.4 |
7.2 | 7.4 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 5.2 |
3.7 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 2.8 |
The results above show that in general Hibernate with MySQL server is slightly more efficient than OpenJPA with MySQL server in persisting JPA entity objects to the database.
A large performance gap has been detected when using graphs of objects with small transaction size. Comparing the normalized speed of OpenJPA with MySQL database server (0.68) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with MySQL database server (1.5) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with MySQL server is 2.2 times faster than OpenJPA with MySQL server.
Speed comparison of JPA database retrieval operations (normalized score, higher is better)
3.2 | 3.0 | 22.7 | 11.0 | 12.9 | 7.0 |
0.0038 | 0.34 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 0.79 |
0.017 | 1.3 | 6.9 | 14.5 | 3.4 | 7.9 |
2.4 | 2.5 | 23.4 | 12.8 | 12.9 | 7.6 |
0.27 | 0.55 | 0.35 | 0.71 | 0.31 | 0.63 |
0.14 | 0.23 | 18.1 | 13.8 | 9.1 | 7.0 |
1.0 | 1.3 | 12.4 | 9.0 | 6.7 | 5.2 |
The results above show that in general OpenJPA with MySQL server is slightly more efficient than Hibernate with MySQL server in retrieving JPA entity objects from the database.
A large performance gap has been detected when using JPA element collections with large retrieval size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with MySQL database server (1.2) to the normalized speed of OpenJPA with MySQL database server (2.9) reveals that in that case, OpenJPA with MySQL server is 2.4 times faster than Hibernate with MySQL server.
On the other hand, OpenJPA with MySQL server is slower, for instance, when using JPA element collections with small retrieval size. Comparing the normalized speed of OpenJPA with MySQL database server (0.0038) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with MySQL database server (0.34) reveals that in that case, OpenJPA with MySQL server is 89.5 times slower than Hibernate with MySQL server.
Speed comparison of JPA database query operations (normalized score, higher is better)
9.3 | 10.0 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 5.8 | 6.0 |
4.8 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 0.53 | 2.9 | 3.6 |
1.5 | 2.8 | 0.90 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 2.2 |
0.31 | 0.44 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
1.9 | 2.1 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 1.4 | 1.5 |
3.6 | 4.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 2.5 | 2.9 |
The results above show that in general Hibernate with MySQL server is slightly more efficient than OpenJPA with MySQL server in executing the tested JPA queries.
On the other hand, Hibernate with MySQL server is slower, for instance, when using JPA element collections with large retrieval size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with MySQL database server (0.53) to the normalized speed of OpenJPA with MySQL database server (1.1) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with MySQL server is 2.1 times slower than OpenJPA with MySQL server.
Speed comparison of JPA database update operations (normalized score, higher is better)
0.74 | 0.73 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
0.014 | 0.39 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.87 | 0.78 |
0.048 | 0.61 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 1.4 |
0.74 | 0.81 | 3.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 1.7 |
0.45 | 0.69 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.35 | 0.54 |
0.55 | 0.63 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
0.42 | 0.64 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
The results above show that in general Hibernate with MySQL server is equivalent to OpenJPA with MySQL server in updating JPA entity objects in the database.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using JPA element collections with small transaction size. Comparing the normalized speed of OpenJPA with MySQL database server (0.014) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with MySQL database server (0.39) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with MySQL server is 27.9 times faster than OpenJPA with MySQL server.
Speed comparison of JPA database removal operations (normalized score, higher is better)
0.98 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
0.0099 | 0.21 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 0.37 |
0.033 | 0.65 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 0.75 | 1.2 |
0.64 | 0.81 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
0.41 | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.62 | 0.42 | 0.58 |
0.27 | 0.35 | 2.9 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 2.2 |
0.39 | 0.61 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 0.96 | 1.2 |
The results above show that in general Hibernate with MySQL server is slightly more efficient than OpenJPA with MySQL server in deleting JPA entity objects from the database.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using JPA element collections with small transaction size. Comparing the normalized speed of OpenJPA with MySQL database server (0.0099) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with MySQL database server (0.21) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with MySQL server is 21.2 times faster than OpenJPA with MySQL server.
Comparison of JPA/Database speed - the averages (normalized score, higher is better)
3.6 | 3.7 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 4.8 | 3.6 |
1.3 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.84 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
1.0 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 3.1 |
1.9 | 2.0 | 6.6 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 3.2 |
0.45 | 0.83 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 0.43 | 0.78 |
2.0 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 3.8 | 3.6 |
1.8 | 2.1 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 2.7 |
The results above show that in general OpenJPA with MySQL server is slightly more efficient than Hibernate with MySQL server in performing JPA database operations.
相关推荐
A Comparison of Open Source Search Engines
SQLServer vs Oracle Comparison
电离层总电子含量(Total Electron Content,TEC)是指电离层中自由电子的总数量,对电磁波传播有重要影响。GPS(Global Positioning System)能够通过信号延迟测量出电离层TEC。IRI-TEC是基于国际参考电离层...
### DB2与Oracle数据库对比分析 #### 引言:为何选择IBM DB2? 随着全球数字化进程的加速,企业面临着前所未有的数据处理挑战。为了更好地利用信息技术(IT),许多组织正在寻求更智能、更高效的解决方案来应对日益...
by-step code execution, breakpoints,watches, a call stack, a variables evaluation mechanism to automate debugging of MySQL stored routines and triggers and keeps MySQL server's logic of procedure ...
The goal of this paper is to provide an experimental comparison of the efficiency of min-cut/max flow algorithms for applications in vision. We compare the running times of several standard ...
"Map of Science with Topic Modeling: Comparison of Unsupervised Learning and Human-Assigned Subject Classification"这篇文章探讨了如何通过主题建模来绘制科学领域的地图,并将这种方法与传统的人工分类方法...
常见无线驱动madwifi、ath5k、ath9k、ath10k、ath11k、b43、bcm43xx、brcmfmac、brcmsmac、hostap、iwlwifi、mt76、mt7601u 之间的差异比较和支持的无线网卡,来源维基百科
### 字典实现的不同算法对比分析 #### 引言 在计算机科学领域中,映射(Mapping)的概念极为常见。映射是一种将一个集合中的元素与另一个集合中的元素相对应的函数。例如,假设存在两个集合A和B,映射f:A→B表示...
### 非线性滤波器对比分析:扩展卡尔曼滤波器(EKF)、无迹卡尔曼滤波器(UKF)与粒子滤波器(PF) #### 概述 本文探讨了非线性滤波器在追踪再入大气层的弹道目标时的应用与性能比较。该研究聚焦于三个主要的非...
详细的介绍多目标有化算法以及相应的测试函数,以及对比各种多目标优化算法(Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results)
### 无线局域网中单用户MIMO与多用户MIMO方案的性能比较 #### 摘要概览 本文对比分析了采用单用户MIMO(SU-MIMO)与多用户MIMO(MU-MIMO)技术的无线局域网(WLAN)在碰撞概率、平均吞吐量以及延迟方面的性能差异...
本文是一篇由K. Mikolajczyk等来自不同研究机构的学者合作撰写的学术论文,旨在对仿射不变区域检测器(affine region detectors)进行评估和比较。论文的主要内容包括对六种不同的区域检测器在不同成像条件下的性能...
现代沉积物(<100 年)的光释光年代与独立控制年代的对比及其意义,范天来,Fan Yuxin,本文利用光释光测年手段,对现代粉尘沉积物进行年代测定,试图建立高分辨率年代框架。测试的粉尘样品均采自位建筑物的顶层...
software Blender, if they supported the required features and if they appeared to have some form of complete specification. The formats were then evaluated by looking at the available specification。
本文对比分析了几代视频编码标准的压缩能力,重点关注了高效率视频编码(HEVC)技术。文章利用峰值信噪比(PSNR)和主观测试结果来对比不同视频编码标准的设计,包括H.262/MPEG-2视频、H.263、MPEG-4视觉、H.264/...
### VHDL、Verilog与SystemVerilog的对比分析 #### 引言 随着硬件描述语言(HDL)的各种增强功能在过去几年中不断增多,选择最适合特定设计的语言也变得越来越复杂。许多设计师和组织正在考虑是否应该从一种HDL转向...
### 视频编码标准的编码效率比较 #### 引言 本文主要探讨了视频编码标准在编码效率方面的表现。编码效率是指在达到特定视频质量水平时所需的比特率最小化的能力,或者反过来讲,在给定比特率下所能实现的最大视频...
System planning for direct-sampling receivers is reviewed, highlighting dBFS/Hz as an intrinsic measure of dynamic range, independent of channel and Nyquist bandwidths. Power dissipation versus ...