db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan Ooi <ivanooide...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tested HSQLDB faster than Derby ? Did I miss anythings ?
Date Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:38:26 GMT
Hi,

 Thanks for the repply. Is that true that temporary storage are more faster
for insert statement ?
because i found out temporary storage are much more faster. of cause I mean
INSERT....
and... is there anyway that  i can  increase  Derby temporary storage
performance ? other
thant those i listed...

Thanks again and happy new year....



On 1/1/06, Øystein Grøvlen <Oystein.Grovlen@sun.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "IO" == Ivan Ooi <ivanooiderby@gmail.com> writes:
>
>     IO> Hi all,
>     IO> I did an insert 5096 rows test on Derby and HSQLDB. i found out
>     IO> HSQLDB a bit faster... Anythings else that i miss in this test ?
>
> HSQLDB will probably perform well and be a good choice if what you
> need is just a temporary storage with a SQL interface.  However, if
> you need durability, transaction isolation, reliable recovery, and
> advanced SQL features, HSQLDB is NOT any alternative in my opinion.
>
> --
> Øystein
>
>
>     IO> Here is the test :-
>     IO> Derby version 10.1.2
>     IO> ---------
>     IO> org.apache.derby.jdbc.Embedded
>
>     IO> Driver
>     IO> url=jdbc:derby:DerbyTest;create=true
>     IO> Auto Commit off.
>     IO> using global temporary table.
>     IO> (cached table was used in HSQLDB)
>     IO> Created a table with 18 columns. ( A real situation)
>     IO> Column type included INTEGER, VARCHAR, TIMESTAP and NUMERIC
>     IO> Derby database page size set using :-
>     IO> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_DATABASE_PROPERTY( '
> derby.storage.pageSize','32768')
>     IO> Prepared statement was used.
>     IO> execute using Batch process.
>     IO> Derby result : 3395ms
>     IO> HSQLDB result : 1011ms
>
>

Mime
View raw message