db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: simpler api to the Derby store
Date Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:50:10 GMT
Bryan Pendleton wrote:
>> be useful for applications which just need to put and get data by key 
>> value. These would be applications which don't need complex queries or 
>> SQL. 
> 
> Aren't there some pretty good packages for this already? E.g., BDB-JE,
> JDBM, Perst, etc.?
> 
> Speaking totally personally, I'd sure like to see Derby focus on the
> things that make it special:
>  - complete and correct JDBC implementation
>  - complete and correct SQL implementation
>  - low footprint, zero-admin reliable multi-user DBMS
> 
> thanks,
> 
> bryan
> 
I agree with bryan, I would rather see the Derby project concentrate on
the stated goals of the project as Bryan enumerates.

I do wonder if within this scope derby could do a better job of 
addressing the application paradigm of only needing single keyed
access to a row of the form (short key, short data).  By being embedded
derby already presents a better solution for a java application than
a lot of databases.  So issues are:
1) can we improve the jdbc implementation to make using it for a 
compiled plan close to as efficient as a non standard, store specific 
interface?  And if jdbc is too complicated, could something very simple
be provided on top of jdbc at the cost of an extra method call per
access?
2) Can we provide a way such that only a single btree need be created, 
rather than the current requirement of a heap and index.  The current
model works well if one needs to create multiple indexes on the base
data, and if there is is no limit on the size of the un-indexed portion
of the data.

3) anything else?


Mime
View raw message