Hibernate with SQLite embedded
has failed in 2 tests (
see exceptions
).
The results above show that in general
Hibernate with H2 server
is much more efficient than
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
in persisting JPA entity objects to the database. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.53) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (4.5) reveals that in these tests, Hibernate with H2 server is
8.5 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using
class inheritance
in the object model with small transaction size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.080) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (6.7) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with H2 server is
83.8 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
Speed comparison of JPA database
retrieval operations
(normalized score, higher is better)
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
has failed in 3 tests (
see exceptions
).
The results above show that in general
Hibernate with H2 server
is much more efficient than
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
in retrieving JPA entity objects from the database. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (1.4) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (4.2) reveals that in these tests, Hibernate with H2 server is
3.0 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using
JPA element collections
with small retrieval size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.0008) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (1.0) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with H2 server is
1,250 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
Speed comparison of JPA database
query operations
(normalized score, higher is better)
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
has failed in 3 tests (
see exceptions
).
The results above show that in general
Hibernate with H2 server
is much more efficient than
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
in executing the tested JPA queries. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.42) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (2.3) reveals that in these tests, Hibernate with H2 server is
5.5 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using
database indexes
with small retrieval size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.0011) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (1.7) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with H2 server is
1,545 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
Speed comparison of JPA database
update operations
(normalized score, higher is better)
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
has failed in 3 tests (
see exceptions
).
The results above show that in general
Hibernate with H2 server
is much more efficient than
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
in updating JPA entity objects in the database. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.34) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (2.5) reveals that in these tests, Hibernate with H2 server is
7.4 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using
JPA element collections
with small transaction size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.0022) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (2.6) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with H2 server is
1,182 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
Speed comparison of JPA database
removal operations
(normalized score, higher is better)
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
has failed in 3 tests (
see exceptions
).
The results above show that in general
Hibernate with H2 server
is much more efficient than
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
in deleting JPA entity objects from the database. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.40) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (3.5) reveals that in these tests, Hibernate with H2 server is
8.8 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using
JPA element collections
with small transaction size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.0007) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (1.9) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with H2 server is
2,714 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
Comparison of JPA/Database speed -
the averages
(normalized score, higher is better)
The results above show that in general
Hibernate with H2 server
is much more efficient than
Hibernate with SQLite embedded
in performing JPA database operations. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.62) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (3.4) reveals that in these tests, Hibernate with H2 server is
5.5 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
A huge performance gap has been detected when using
JPA element collections
with small transaction/retrieval size. Comparing the normalized speed of Hibernate with SQLite embedded database (0.092) to the normalized speed of Hibernate with H2 database server (2.6) reveals that in that case, Hibernate with H2 server is
28.3 times faster
than Hibernate with SQLite embedded.
