db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suresh Thalamati <suresh.thalam...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Blog response to Oracle white paper
Date Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:44:26 GMT
Olav Sandstaa wrote:
> Great blog contribution, David!  I also find the report highly biased 
<snip ..>
> Are there other necessary functionality present in Derby (and missing
> in BDB) that is adding to the cost besides the JDBC and SQL layer? Or
> is most of these 400% extra cost mostly contributed by "overhead of
> SQL processing"? It would be great to get opinions from other on the
> list on both if this is a reasonable overhead compared to BDB and what
> are the causes for this overhead, and whether this is something that
> we should try to improve. It could of course also be that BDB
> is doing something either "very smart" or that the test that has been
> run is not fair in some way.
> Thanks,
> Olav
> [1] http://www.nabble.com/Using-Derby-as-a-binary-store-tf2696662.html

I agree with you 400% overhead due to SQ for simple queries is 
unlikely. I wonder if DB is storing both key and values in one file.
In derby key (in tree) and values (in heap) are getting stored in 
different files , may  be this is causing an extra I/O in Derby for 
this test.


View raw message