db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oystein.Grov...@Sun.COM (Øystein Grøvlen)
Subject Re: Tested HSQLDB faster than Derby ? Did I miss anythings ?
Date Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:13:43 GMT
>>>>> "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