db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henrik Johansson" <hen...@vocab.se>
Subject SV: SV: Is Hibernate inappropriate for embedded databases?
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:09:18 GMT

I am not sure how the Store layer cache is used in standard JDBC
usage but it seems like using Hibernate would not consume more memory
than executing an SQL statement and from the resultset create objects
that you would use in your application.

On the contrary, having caching in the DAO layer will probably make it
more efficient since you ask the cache rather than the DB for data.

I am not at all an expert in this field but the simplicity that comes with
using Hibernate should not be discarded without careful consideration.

Maybe we have some gurus out there that have more experience with the
Derby/Hibernate combination...?

/ Henrik

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Michael McCutcheon [mailto:michaelm001@frontiernet.net]
Skickat: den 18 november 2005 15:47
Till: Derby Discussion
Ämne: Re: SV: Is Hibernate inappropriate for embedded databases?

But what about the 'double caching' problems for an embedded scenario?

Henrik Johansson wrote:

>I tried JBoss Embedded which uses Hibernate for a small test
>and it worked like a charm with Derby.
>Using Hibernate alone (or with JBoss Embedded) seems to be a
>very good idea in my opinion for all sorts of reasons.
>Too bad its seemingly not production ready...
>Hibernate alone would be clever since it is very well tested and
>there is no idea to reinvent the wheel.
>/ Henrik
>-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>Från: Michael McCutcheon [mailto:michaelm001@frontiernet.net]
>Skickat: den 18 november 2005 05:33
>Till: Derby Discussion
>Ämne: Is Hibernate inappropriate for embedded databases?
>I'm still struggling to figure out if I should go with strait JDBC,
>stored procedures or something like Hibernate for my data access/update
>in my web app running on Tomcat.
>I've been looking at Hibernate, and it seems that it's claim to fame is
>all of the fancy caching it can do to speed performance.
>However, doesn't derby itself cache data in memory (once the data is
>If the caching functionality in Hibernate is used for an embedded
>database, doesn't that just mean that the data will be cached twice
>(once in derby, once in hibernate), resulting in memory bloat and
>potentially worse performance?
>Any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.

View raw message