Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81932 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2005 16:34:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Aug 2005 16:34:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 89156 invoked by uid 500); 25 Aug 2005 16:34:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 89127 invoked by uid 500); 25 Aug 2005 16:34:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 89114 invoked by uid 99); 25 Aug 2005 16:34:20 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:34:20 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS,SPF_HELO_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [32.97.182.146] (HELO e6.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.146) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:34:36 -0700 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7PGYGDk012762 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:34:16 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j7PGYGlL260930 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:34:16 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7PGYGdW005033 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:34:16 -0400 Received: from [9.72.134.65] (ws420-1.usca.ibm.com [9.72.134.65]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7PGYFhv004965 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:34:15 -0400 Message-ID: <430DF305.20406@sbcglobal.net> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:34:13 -0700 From: Mike Matrigali User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.2 (Windows/20040707) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Discussion Subject: Re: BLOB performence References: <1124855839.22088.ezmlm@db.apache.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.85.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N What version of Derby are you using? There was a recent fix in the area of clob's but I am not aware of a problem with blob's. What does your insert look like, ie. does it use streams to insert the blob value and does it use prepared statements. Seems like a simple example, can you post your test program? What size are your rows without the blob vs. with the blob? Rajes Akkineni wrote: > Hi, > Have any one tried using BLOBs with derby? > I tried it...tried to insert 1000 64kb blobs...unfortunaly it took all > my memory and gave OutofMemoryException. > It used all the heep. > > When i tried to place 1000 64kb blobs it took more then 120 sec. > But when i removed the blob i can execute 9,00,00,000 inserts in just 3 > sec. > > Why BLOB is so slow??? > Am i used it incorrectly? > Have any one gort similar experiance? > > Thanks > Rajesh > >