You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airavata.apache.org by Lahiru Gunathilake <gl...@gmail.com> on 2012/09/14 23:41:23 UTC
Do we really need to use JPA in new Airavata registry implementation
Hi Devs,
I have been testing the new registry implementation and I have a feeling
this is getting slow which is the issue that we are trying to address for
jackrabbit implementation. This JPA implementation will add an extra
complexity with a big performance overhead.
I don't think we need to use a framework for this simple repository which
has 11 tables with each having less than 6 columns in each table. My point
is for a simple database like this, we really don't have to use a
framework[1]. If our system it so damn complex we can live with the
complexities and the performance bottleneck of JPA.
WDYT ?
[1]https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10567940
--
System Analyst Programmer
PTI Lab
Indiana University
Re: Do we really need to use JPA in new Airavata registry implementation
Posted by Raminderjeet Singh <ra...@gmail.com>.
Going back to JDBC means using Xregistry (Registry which was part of donation). There is nothing bad in that but lets find what are the bottlenecks in current JPA. I am sure we will be able to fix any performance problem by optimizing relationships and configurations.
Thanks
Raminder
On Sep 15, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Chathuri Wimalasena wrote:
> Hi Lahiru,
>
> Since we have a middle resource layer underneath JPA model layer, it will
> not be hard thing to move from JPA to pure JDBC. IMO what we should do is,
> try to identify which queries give us performance bottleneck and try to
> replace them with pure JDBC.
>
> But at this point, I do not think it is a good idea to replace everything
> from JDBC since we have a complete model implemented. Instead of replacing
> everything, we can go for composite model which will have JDBC queries as
> well as openJPA queries.
>
> Regards,
> Chathuri
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Amila Jayasekara
> <th...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Lahiru,
>>
>> [3] suggests some performance improvements on JPA. I am not sure
>> whether all those suggestions are applicable to our scenario. It might
>> be worth to try them and see the performance improvement, before
>> completely giving up on JPA.
>>
>> [3]
>> http://java-persistence-performance.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-improve-jpa-performance-by-1825.html
>>
>> Thanks
>> Amila
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Amila Jayasekara
>> <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You can also find an another thread related to this in [2].
>>>
>>> [2]
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/260618/orm-solutions-jpa-hibernate-vs-jdbc
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <gl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>
>>>> I have been testing the new registry implementation and I have a feeling
>>>> this is getting slow which is the issue that we are trying to address
>> for
>>>> jackrabbit implementation. This JPA implementation will add an extra
>>>> complexity with a big performance overhead.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we need to use a framework for this simple repository
>> which
>>>> has 11 tables with each having less than 6 columns in each table. My
>> point
>>>> is for a simple database like this, we really don't have to use a
>>>> framework[1]. If our system it so damn complex we can live with the
>>>> complexities and the performance bottleneck of JPA.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10567940
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> System Analyst Programmer
>>>> PTI Lab
>>>> Indiana University
>>
Re: Do we really need to use JPA in new Airavata registry implementation
Posted by Chathuri Wimalasena <ka...@gmail.com>.
Hi Lahiru,
Since we have a middle resource layer underneath JPA model layer, it will
not be hard thing to move from JPA to pure JDBC. IMO what we should do is,
try to identify which queries give us performance bottleneck and try to
replace them with pure JDBC.
But at this point, I do not think it is a good idea to replace everything
from JDBC since we have a complete model implemented. Instead of replacing
everything, we can go for composite model which will have JDBC queries as
well as openJPA queries.
Regards,
Chathuri
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Amila Jayasekara
<th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Lahiru,
>
> [3] suggests some performance improvements on JPA. I am not sure
> whether all those suggestions are applicable to our scenario. It might
> be worth to try them and see the performance improvement, before
> completely giving up on JPA.
>
> [3]
> http://java-persistence-performance.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-improve-jpa-performance-by-1825.html
>
> Thanks
> Amila
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Amila Jayasekara
> <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can also find an another thread related to this in [2].
> >
> > [2]
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/260618/orm-solutions-jpa-hibernate-vs-jdbc
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Devs,
> >>
> >> I have been testing the new registry implementation and I have a feeling
> >> this is getting slow which is the issue that we are trying to address
> for
> >> jackrabbit implementation. This JPA implementation will add an extra
> >> complexity with a big performance overhead.
> >>
> >> I don't think we need to use a framework for this simple repository
> which
> >> has 11 tables with each having less than 6 columns in each table. My
> point
> >> is for a simple database like this, we really don't have to use a
> >> framework[1]. If our system it so damn complex we can live with the
> >> complexities and the performance bottleneck of JPA.
> >>
> >> WDYT ?
> >>
> >> [1]https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10567940
> >>
> >> --
> >> System Analyst Programmer
> >> PTI Lab
> >> Indiana University
>
Re: Do we really need to use JPA in new Airavata registry implementation
Posted by Amila Jayasekara <th...@gmail.com>.
Hi Lahiru,
[3] suggests some performance improvements on JPA. I am not sure
whether all those suggestions are applicable to our scenario. It might
be worth to try them and see the performance improvement, before
completely giving up on JPA.
[3] http://java-persistence-performance.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-to-improve-jpa-performance-by-1825.html
Thanks
Amila
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Amila Jayasekara
<th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can also find an another thread related to this in [2].
>
> [2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/260618/orm-solutions-jpa-hibernate-vs-jdbc
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Devs,
>>
>> I have been testing the new registry implementation and I have a feeling
>> this is getting slow which is the issue that we are trying to address for
>> jackrabbit implementation. This JPA implementation will add an extra
>> complexity with a big performance overhead.
>>
>> I don't think we need to use a framework for this simple repository which
>> has 11 tables with each having less than 6 columns in each table. My point
>> is for a simple database like this, we really don't have to use a
>> framework[1]. If our system it so damn complex we can live with the
>> complexities and the performance bottleneck of JPA.
>>
>> WDYT ?
>>
>> [1]https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10567940
>>
>> --
>> System Analyst Programmer
>> PTI Lab
>> Indiana University
Re: Do we really need to use JPA in new Airavata registry implementation
Posted by Amila Jayasekara <th...@gmail.com>.
You can also find an another thread related to this in [2].
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/260618/orm-solutions-jpa-hibernate-vs-jdbc
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> I have been testing the new registry implementation and I have a feeling
> this is getting slow which is the issue that we are trying to address for
> jackrabbit implementation. This JPA implementation will add an extra
> complexity with a big performance overhead.
>
> I don't think we need to use a framework for this simple repository which
> has 11 tables with each having less than 6 columns in each table. My point
> is for a simple database like this, we really don't have to use a
> framework[1]. If our system it so damn complex we can live with the
> complexities and the performance bottleneck of JPA.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> [1]https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10567940
>
> --
> System Analyst Programmer
> PTI Lab
> Indiana University