Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 70127 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2004 17:35:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 17:35:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 99812 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2004 17:35:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 99780 invoked by uid 500); 9 Sep 2004 17:35:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: "Derby Discussion" Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 99767 invoked by uid 99); 9 Sep 2004 17:35:15 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [66.163.170.82] (HELO smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.170.82) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:35:14 -0700 Received: from unknown (HELO debrunners.com) (ddebrunner@sbcglobal.net@32.97.110.142 with plain) by smtp812.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Sep 2004 17:35:12 -0000 Message-ID: <41409451.6060506@debrunners.com> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:35:13 -0700 From: Daniel John Debrunner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Discussion Subject: Re: Derby vs. HSQL but apache win References: <7D3CC6609ECDB64A949E1096E2CA6BE8FD79DF@VEX1.ds.leeds.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <7D3CC6609ECDB64A949E1096E2CA6BE8FD79DF@VEX1.ds.leeds.ac.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.8.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jianhui Jin wrote: > Just turn auto-commit off, run 10000 > > Not so much difference between derby and hsql, but still slightly > slower, about 50% slower. > > But I will still go for Derby, because I trust apache, No doubt there are situations where Derby is suitable and where HSQL is suitable. Users just need to understand the different goals for the two projects, or at least the differences in their current implementations. These are two main differences I see from a quick look at the HSQL docs. Memory Use Derby is setup like a traditional database system where data is stored on disk and a subset of that data is cached in a buffer cache or pool. HSQL by default uses MEMORY tables (for standard CREATE TABLE statements), this always stores the entire data in memory. Thus this is fast, but obviously consumes memory. It is useful to look a process sizes as well as absolute times when running benchmarks. http://hsqldb.sourceforge.net/doc/guide/ch01.html#N1021D Transaction Model Derby provides a complete thread-safe multi-connection model supporting all four JDBC/SQL isolation levels. Row level locking is used to support these isolation models. HSQL provides the single isolation level, READ_UNCOMMITTED, also known as dirty read, even for update transactions. Issues with this model are described in the HSQL documentation at: http://hsqldb.sourceforge.net/doc/guide/ch02.html#N104D5 > > hope a new release come soon. I need a stable version urgently for my > contract. I started a thread on the developer list about starting a release, the subject is 'thoughts on a release?'. Dan. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBQJRRIv0S4qsbfuQRAje+AKCd0z4jSPNCgSuQ4RjGR6pDBiJthwCeL7w1 0SIT1k/E3c9OCXUrJvpp/Ug= =ENJk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----