Re: using java for stored procedures (Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen)

Originally the JVM was 64bit but the Java team at IBM saw that there was performance gains that could be had by providing a 32bit version. I think that it was first available in V5R4M0 (not sure). If I remember correctly, some of the performance gains in the 32bit were then moved back into the 64bit version in V6R1M0 (IBM i 6.1). I think, overall, the 32bit bit still outperforms the native 64bit one but the gap may be closing. At Common I have sat in on a couple of JVM optimization sessions given by Blair Wyman from IBM. Great stuff, and the IBM Java team is top notch.

Pete


Mike Cunningham wrote:

Hasn't the JVM always been 64-bit and the newer one is a 32-bit version?

-----Original Message-----
From: java400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:java400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Campin
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:44 PM
To: Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400
Subject: Re: using java for stored procedures (Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen)

Just curious. It was even that slow using the new 64-bit JVM running in PASE
or that running the Classic JVM?

The new JVM is supposed to be so much faster.


On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Bruce Jin <brucej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

Our past experience seemed to suggest that Java stored procedures
implemented on AS400 could be very slow compared with SQL/RPG/CL
procedures.
Our tests showed that it could be 10 - 50 times slower. We did tests on
tables with a few dozen records to a few dozen million records. Tested on
V6R1.

It would be interesting to know if this is true on your box.

Bruce
--
This is the Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400 (JAVA400-L)
mailing list
To post a message email: JAVA400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l
or email: JAVA400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/java400-l.