Short answer: with bean-managed persistence, you can optimize your queries and improve performance over the generalized container-managed heuristics. But container-managed persistence is very convenient, and vendors will be working to improve its performance as time goes on.]
There is of course a difference as many CMPs use O-R mapping using metadata, which is slower than hardcoded queries (except vendors like GemStone that use a OODB which is slow anyway!) As always, a lot depends on the database schema. Given that CMP is still evolving, complex relationships (e.g.inheritance) and distributed transactions are not even supported by most EJB server vendors, leave alone performance.
Having said that however, it does not seem right to compare BMP and CMP on performance because the motivation of CMP is precisely to relieve bean providers from thinking about this! In (J2EE) theory, a good CMP implementation should perform well in a production environment; in practice, except for a couple of vendors who have traditionally been strong in persistent storage space (e.g. Persistence Software, GemStone) you will not find great CMP support at this very moment.
BMP offers a tactical approach while CMP is more strategic. Which implies that if you can work-around some (perhaps severe) limitations for near-term, there may be much to gain with CMP as the vendor offering matures.
Filed under: EJB |