Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <46DC21AE.80909@amberpoint.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 08:01:02 -0700
From: Bryan Pendleton <bpendleton@amberpoint.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Discussion <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Question on benchmarks on derby.
References: <ee3760eb0709030733y4fe67cby58eaee69ccf54872@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ee3760eb0709030733y4fe67cby58eaee69ccf54872@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> We have tried TPC-W on Derby 10.2.2(server mode) and was not a viable teste.

Have you tried Derby 10.3, which was just released? It would be interesting
to know how the results compared.

> This test have many IN  statements with multilevel querys and max rows
> statements. The optimizer doesn't make the best choices, there are
> many table scans over indexed columns.  And have some memory leak. So

I'm sure that the developers list would be quite interested in
discussing the problems that you found, and the possible solutions
that you think would be useful. Sounds like you may be hitting some
known problems, but may also have encountered some new ones.

What is your goal with respect to running these benchmarks? Are you
attempting to evaluate whether Derby's performance would be acceptable
for your environment? Or are you investigating Derby performance
issues in order to address them?

thanks,

bryan