Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of kartha02@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ipTvjrYD/LesSAg8Xl9D0Xb91HTE/t3knAPAj0lpPOytmGXY9VYmhw7BLPjsvc9IlDR2g0t9vX4nxOZPevvqaEH2OpcOzvPzzLJbj/P65ZhwV9i8KHg6w/tSgrQ4YnFfTP7/x0Az/XQDyHDd4QjCDMbvM40f+VcZEChYnRJbu/k=
Message-ID: <456E715D.6070403@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:51:25 -0800
From: Rajesh Kartha <kartha02@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: cross posting white paper pointer - "Oracle Berkeley DB Java
 Edition vs Apache Derby: A Performance Comparison"
References: <456E0CD1.8090500@sbcglobal.net> <456E0E07.3070805@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <456E0E07.3070805@sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I read the paper and it seemed like an apples to oranges comparison. It 
sounded like comparison of
some proprietary API  to JDBC ?

Also could not find details about how exactly the timings were measured 
(JDBC PreparedStatement v/s some put(key,data) API  ?).

Anyways, here is another paper from them comparing Berkeley DB with 
Relational database systems in general.
http://www.oracle.com/database/docs/Berkeley-DB-v-Relational.pdf

This one seemed more relevant since Berkeley DB is essential touted as a 
library and not a full-fledged database system.

Also should you get a chance try reading the licensing terms ( I got a 
bit lost reading their FAQ):
http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/htdocs/licensing.html

-Rajesh

Mike Matrigali wrote:

> Just some observations from reading the paper:
>
> o only one comparison is done with real durability?  We usually just 
> up # of users or operations per transaction to show increased 
> throughput while not being I/O bound.
>
> o great marketing on that first durability graph, I looked at it and 
> couldn't understand why we were half the speed then saw that we were
> 83 vs. 89 inserts/sec.
>
> o I believe the insert numbers should be better for derby in 10.2.
>
> o I wonder if our use of file sync during consistency points is hurting
> us in the other write-sync tests?
>
>
> Mike Matrigali wrote:
>
>>  From a posting on the user list:
>>
>> I actually just found a whitepaper
>> "Oracle Berkeley DB Java Edition vs Apache Derby: A Performance 
>> Comparison"
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/pdf/je-derby-performance.pdf 
>>
>>
>> Just copying there conclusion here:
>>
>> "The Berkeley DB Java Edition Persistence API is a high performance, 
>> complete solution for Java object persistence. Berkeley DB Java 
>> Edition performance exceeds Derby performance in every test, by a 
>> factor of 3 to 10, clearly demonstrating the superior performance of 
>> Berkeley DB Java Edition"
>>
>> Cheers
>>   Kasper
>>
>>
>>
>
>