db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:31:41 GMT
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.

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.

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/ApacheCon05usDerbyPerformance.pdf

Slide 21 is especially interesting, which compares main-memory and
disk-based databases for 1-100 clients. While Derby does not perform as
well as MySQL and PostgreSQL for main-memory databases, it does perform
better that MySQL for disk-based databases. Note that this presentation
doesn't reflect the performance enhancements in 10.2.

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.

regards,

-jean

Mime
View raw message