db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: In Memory
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:40:38 GMT


David Van Couvering wrote:
> FYI, the issue with "durability:test" is not that you may lose some 
> data, it's that your data may become corrupt on failure and you won't be 
> able to reboot it.  This is fine for unit testing, that's why it's 
> called "test".

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here.
It seems that you are saying DERBY-646 has less problems than 
durability=test.  With in memory you are guaranteed to lose your
database on reboot (which may be just fine for some apps).

> 
> DERBY-646 needs to be tested and documented.  It sure would be nice to 
> get this in there, we keep getting this request.
> 
> David
> 
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> 
>> On 7/31/06, Chris Forbis <chris_forbis@symantec.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was looking at derby and the FAQ says in Memory version has not been
>>> completed, but to check with list..  It also said this about six 
>>> months ago
>>> :)  Just wondering if anything is being done on it...
>>
>>
>> This feature request is being tracked with DERBY-646 in JIRA:
>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-646
>>
>> Feel free to pick up the work that has been done there and continue it
>> if you are interested. There are comments in JIRA that describe what
>> work remains to be done.
>>
>> If you are not interested in working on the feature, and the
>> durability of your databases is not concern for you, then you could
>> achieve similar performance by running with the property
>> derby.system.durability set to "test":
>>
>> http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/dev/tuning/rtunproperdurability.html
>>
>> HTH,
>> andrew
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message