Since this "benchmark" has been written by someone who admits that he doesn't know anything about Hibernate, you won't get much usable information out of it. This particular thing has been debunked internally by a member of our team in 15 minutes - with now Hibernate being "100x faster". There is just no value in publishing this, since it would a) encourage others to waste our time again with similar stuff and b) cost more of our time than it is worth.
We get many benchmarks like this from competing vendors (note that this is particular benchmark very likely encouraged and/or sponsored by an object database vendor) and we don't have the time to debunk them all. We encourage you to create your own benchmarks if you want objective results. Some trivial micro-benchmarks that show the real JDBC overhead for unrealistic non-concurrent data access are available in the Hibernate distribution, as the "ant perftest" target.
Thanks for the links! Still, I'd prefer if you folks post your internal benchmarks that refute the www.polepos.org findings, for the benefit of teams debating the costs of switching to EJB 3.0/the new persistence framework and moving away from DAOs. Raw, cold numbers talk a lot to managers :-)