db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Pannozzi <jimse...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: single file database?
Date Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:50:02 GMT
Thanks for mentioning SQLite!

Very impressive.

Between databases such as Derby and packages such as
SQLite, there is no longer any need for medium sized
companies (or even bigger ones) to spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars on Oracle or MS SqL.

Another major development is that Linux desktops are just
about ready to invade and conquer a realm that up to
now has been pretty much firmly under the control of
Microsoft.   Check out Suse Linux 10.0, it is very very
impressive.   I hope to switch over much of my development
work to it soon, including, of course, Derby.

Jim Pannozzi

On 12/14/05, Kervin L. Pierre <kervin@adevsoft.com> wrote:
> Michael Segel wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 December 2005 2:42 am, Roger Keays wrote:
> >>I saw on the derby todo list[0] that there were plans to store a derby
> [...]
> > That would be highly inefficient and wouldn't scale.
> >
> Why SQLite does this ( http://sqlite.org/ )
> and is very fast.  May be faster than Derby.
> Application users are used to having a single
> file manage a 'set of work'.  Eg. a PSD file
> for work with an image, or a XLS, or DOC file
> etc.
> If a developer uses Derby for storage this
> would get cumbersome.  Zipping the derby DB
> directory is one approach, but that
> complicates application saves, crash recovery,
> etc.
> Regards,
> Kervin

View raw message