From derby-user-return-5456-apmail-db-derby-user-archive=db.apache.org@db.apache.org Mon Oct 30 03:40:04 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 24477 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2006 03:40:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Oct 2006 03:40:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 15842 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2006 03:40:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 15818 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2006 03:40:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 15807 invoked by uid 99); 30 Oct 2006 03:40:13 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:40:13 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [65.195.181.55] (HELO dbrack01.segel.com) (65.195.181.55) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:40:00 -0800 Received: from Desktop02 (desktop02.segel.com [65.195.181.45]) by dbrack01.segel.com (Postfix - We shoot spammers on site.) with ESMTP id 938C725054; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:47:20 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: From: "Michael Segel" To: "'Derby Discussion'" , Subject: RE: multiple webapps many embedded vs single network Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:38:50 -0600 Organization: MSCC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Thread-index: Acb7kf7I82XfMgl5QneDeEgCZSrseQAQO14A In-Reply-To: <4545019D.1050301@bristowhill.com> Message-Id: <20061030034720.938C725054@dbrack01.segel.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > -----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. > [mjs] 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. > [mjs] 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 > [mjs] 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. > [mjs] 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 page. 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?