Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Cecil Westerhof Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Performance JPA Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:55:33 +0100 Organization: Decebal Computing Lines: 31 Message-ID: <878u6fk1wa.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> References: <87lhagkcsh.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="528adfd6ad074c92fdc6a7f8fb9e23d8"; logging-data="19455"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+bjvfXVWEus3AsW/VsohTbnI0wrdZ2Us=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:XPtfsfEqQSBWEibrxGtYDL9k/xw= sha1:zXkjEJByoolKIj9h7Vr//Ur8Hko= X-Homepage: http://www.decebal.nl/ Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32979 On Tuesday 3 Nov 2015 02:08 CET, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 11/2/2015 3:47 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote: >> We needed to change from JDBC to JPA. It looks like the performance >> is 10 to 20 times as slow as it was with JDBC. I could understand >> JPA to be slower as JDBC, but not with this kind of difference. Are >> there any common error that would explain this kind of penalty? > > With a factor 20 then JPA is doing something completely different > from what the JDBC is doing. This is the difference that I am told. I still wait on a confirmation. > First thing you should do is to tell your JPA implementation > to log the SQL it executes, then you should be able to see > what the difference is. We are going to do that. > Next step will be to fix it. But that will require details > on the difference, the JPA implementation, the model etc.. In my other response I explained the differences. When more information is needed: let me know. -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof