db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: in-memory
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:38:05 GMT
I have to agree, we need a more useful "memory-based" solution that 
guarantees consistency if not durability.

David

Francois Orsini wrote:
> *uh* ;)
> 
> Well I sure would not run a production application with relaxed 
> durability turned on ;) *unless* 1) I can guarantee my system will never 
> crash _or_ 2) my databases are completely read-only (not even sure we 
> would not still see issues here with the log but this is just 
> speculation assuming temp files used for large sort ops are not logged 
> ), 3) _or_ tha t I would not care to rebuild my DBs in case of 
> corruption, etc...
> 
> "Once the database is booted with derby.system.durability=test, there 
> are no guarantees that the database is consistent."
> 
> On 10/11/05, *Daniel John Debrunner* <djd@debrunners.com 
> <mailto:djd@debrunners.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Norbert Toth-Gati wrote:
> 
>      > Hi David,
>      >
>      > I have changed some mails with Stephen Fitch, he said he is
>     working on this.
>      > If feature is requested so frequent, is it possible to hope it will
>      > get a higher priority and get some where in the front of the TODO
>      > list?
> 
> 
>     Why do you need an in-memory version of Derby? Have you tried Derby
>     with
>     the relaxed durability if you are concerned about performance?
> 
>     http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.1/tuning/rtunproperdurability.html
>     <http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.1/tuning/rtunproperdurability.html>
> 
>     Providing a good reason whty something is needed is a definite help in
>     motivating people to scratch that itch! :-)
> 
>     Dan.
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message