db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Francois Orsini <francois.ors...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: in-memory
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:21:27 GMT
*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> 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
>
> Providing a good reason whty something is needed is a definite help in
> motivating people to scratch that itch! :-)
>
> Dan.
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message