Java Database connection Pool performance comparison

The purpose of this test is to verify the performance of the current common database connection pool.

TestCase

  Connection conn = dataSource.getConnection();  PreparedStatement stmt = conn.preparedStatement("select 1");  ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery();  while (rs.next()) {  }  rs.close();  stmt.close();  conn.close();

• Test Codehttps://github.com/alibaba/druid/blob/master/src/test/java/com/alibaba/druid/benckmark/pool/case1.java

• Test Config

  Property	Value
  InitialSize	10
  Minpoolsize	10
  Maxpoolsize	50

Test the performance comparison of 1,000,000 (1 million) times of the total time spent executing requests in various concurrent scenarios.

Environment

• OS Linux 3.5.0-19-generic x86_64
• CPU XEON e5-2450 Dual Total 16 core 32 physical thread
• Memory 48G

This is a two-way Xeon CPU workstation, which is closer to the real server environment than the one I tested on Mac book Pro.

JDK 1.6.0_38

Database Connection Pool	1 thread	2 Threads	5 Threads	Ten Threads	Threads	Threads	Threads
Druid	248	710	1,133	1,134	905	1,107	1,468
Dbcp	660	1,522	3,545	4,176	3,671	4,237	14,129
Bonecp	3,522	2,930	2,579	3,745	7,434	11,991	14,584
C3p0	4,275	9,509	3,371	10,439	13,472	19,848	36,153
Proxool	7,187	7,707	11,037	10,777	15,222 (Error)	18,100 (Error)	21,547 (Error)
Tomcat-jdbc	372	736	1,879	1,727	1,576	1,322	12,545
Jboss-datasource	1,326	1,184	2,928	3,765	3,099	3,278	10,812

JDK 1.7.0_10

Database Connection Pool	1 thread	2 Threads	5 Threads	Ten Threads	Threads	Threads	Threads
Druid	309	605	1,028	947	962	897	1,238
Dbcp	924	1,461	4,062	4,030	4,908	5,505	14,517
Bonecp	3,047	2,055	2,549	3,821	6,367	12,865	18,832
C3p0	4,018	8,206	8,897	10,667	12,367	25,822	38,681
Proxool	6912	4,714	4,851	11,908	16,066 (Error)	19,568 (Error)	18,036 (Error)
Tomcat-jdbc	400	740	1,811	1,707	1,618	1,624	11,905
Jboss-datasource	1,369	1,105	4,002	3,089	3,483	3,665	11,782

Results analysis

1. Druid is the best-performing database connection pool, with TOMCAT-JDBC and Druid performance approaching.
2. Proxool in the intense concurrency will throw abnormal, completely not reliable. In the case of concurrency 10, 11 or 12 physical connections are used.
3. C3P0 and Proxool are fairly slow and slow to the point where SQL execution is inefficient.
4. BONECP performance is not superior, the use of linkedtransferqueue has not been able to achieve performance gains.
5. Jboss-datasource stable, but poor performance
6. BONECP and c3p0 completely do not follow the minpoolsize configuration, as long as there is an activity request, it will use the maxpoolsize.
7. BONECP and C3P0 have large concurrent use of more than maxpoolsize number of physical connections, reaching maxpoolsize+1

Transferred from: Https://github.com/alibaba/druid/wiki/linux-benchmark