db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Segel" <mse...@segel.com>
Subject RE: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:38:50 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean T. Anderson [mailto:jta@bristowhill.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:32 PM
> To: Derby Discussion
> Subject: Re: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
> Michael Segel wrote:
> ...
> > Derby wasn't designed to be a central database to multiple apps. So its
> not
> > efficient in that role. Note: This is in comparison to IDS, DB2, Oracle.
> > Derby is not one of those. It lacks the features that they have to act
> as a
> > centralized DB, however it does have a much smaller footprint.
> I disagree with this statement, but perhaps I didn't read this thread
> carefully and am missing some context.
Knowing you, you haven't really thought about what I was saying.

> Derby fully supports multi-user, multi-application concurrent access,
> even in embedded mode. It complies with the ACID (Atomic, Consistent,
> Isolation, Durable) properties expected of relational databases.

And what does this have to do with performance?

Now Jean you should know better. But I don't believe you're truly a heritage
Informix person. ;-)

I would suggest that talk to Mohan and ask him about items in DB2 and
Informix that improve performance. Just how IDS stores data is way more
advanced. Raw partitions/chucks, table spaces, table portioning, detatched
indexes. It's the whole layout. 

> Olav Sandstaa's ApacheCon US 2005 performance presentation is here and
> includes results for Derby in both embedded and client/server modes
> (plus MySQL and PostgreSQL):
> http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon-
> data/attachments/Us2005OnlineSessionSlides/attachments/ApacheCon05usDerbyP
> erformance.pdf
Ooooh! MySQL, now that's a barn burner when it comes to looking for a
centralized database?

Hint: Compare MySQL to DB2, Oracle, Informix on performance issues.

> I don't know of any similar results for comparing Derby performance to
> IDS, DB2, and Oracle. If anyone knows of any such studies, please post a
> pointer.

You won't see it.
Is there a Derby TPC-C benchmark?

In case you've missed it, Derby was designed with a small footprint. Adding
features that make databases perform well where there are multiple
instances/databases per server, improved data storage techniques etc are
missing from Derby.

Is that a bad thing? No. Derby was designed for a specific niche and not a
general purpose centralized database. You want those features, then you
increase your footprint and you lose your ability to be embedded in a web

We've covered this ground before.
Does the community want a 100% Java, and a *free* database that could
compete with Oracle, DB2 and Informix? Are there people in the community
that are capable of designing and implementing this?

And how do you still maintain the small foot print for those that want to
imbed it?

View raw message