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: Limit on number of rows a table can hold?
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:41:00 GMT
Roll over and dies?

The OP's question was could Derby handle a billion or more rows.
The answer is that it depends.

At the same time, a table with a billion rows will be less efficient than a
table with a million rows.  So the first question is why a billion rows in a
single table?

To your point... Derby isn't *free*. If you want to compare Derby to Oracle,
Informix and DB2 then you have to consider that with Oracle, Informix and
DB2, you are paying a company for support.  So you should be comparing
JavaDB, Cloudscape to Oracle, Informix and DB2.

You may not break Derby, but will it perform as well as other databases?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A. Rick Anderson [mailto:arick@pobox.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:45 AM
> To: Derby Discussion
> Subject: Re: Limit on number of rows a table can hold?
> 
> But we'd all like to know at what point it rolls over and dies :-)
> There's a reason that Derby is free and Oracle, DB2 etc cost budko bucks.
> 
> derby@segel.com wrote:
> > Billions of rows?
> > Sounds like you'll need to rethink your design.
> > Sure you can do it, but how efficient will it be?
> 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Tim Troup [mailto:tim.troup@ed.ac.uk]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:55 AM
> >>To: Derby Discussion
> >>Subject: Limit on number of rows a table can hold?
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Is there a limit on the number of rows a table can hold?
> >>I am planning on using derby as the RDBMS for a system that will
> >>require tables to hold billions of rows.
> >>
> >>Thanks, Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> A. Rick Anderson




Mime
View raw message