db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonas Ahlinder <jonas.ahlin...@digitalroute.com>
Subject RE: performance issue
Date Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:29:02 GMT
Hi.

On Windows i use 1.6.0_10 and on Linux 1.6.0_10rc2 ( the final version was released today
i think, havent gotten to install that yet ).
As for parameters i only use -Xmx512m since the database is pretty bit.
And i just realised there are some more details i should have mentioned about the database.

The table is 500.000 rows which are created _before_ the actual work begins, these are empty
rows that we do updates on to delete/insert/update information in the rows.
This was to be able to stop the database growth, something that obviously didnt work.

________________________________________
From: Peter Ondruška [peter.ondruska@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 4:23 PM
To: Derby Discussion
Subject: Re: performance issue

Hello, speed depends also on JVM. What version and JVM parameters are you using?

On 10/16/08, Jonas Ahlinder <jonas.ahlinder@digitalroute.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> We are developing a function to store session information, for use in a HA
> environment.
> However we are not reaching the throughput we want.
>
> Since its for persistance, we need to do autocommit on all operations.
> The Table has two indexes and a blob of data.
> The first index is a char(20) and the second is a timestamp.
>
> I put transaction log and data on separate disks.
>
> The first issue is that on a desktop machine ( running vista ) with two 7.2k
> rpm sata disks I get over 900 tps, while on a server ( running RHEL 5 ) and
> two 15k rpm sas disks, I get around 250 tps.
> I realise this might not have anything to do with derby, but running iozone
> tells me that the server has _a lot_ faster IO.
> Im of course very interested in performance tweaking ideas regarding a HP
> smart array p400i aswell.
> We need to get it to work properly in the server enviroment.
>
> The other issue, and perhaps more related to derby, is that the timestamp
> index wont stop growing.
> After 24 hours it had grownfrom around 100mb to over 1gb, and the
> performance obviously dropped massively due to this.
> I have tried running in-place compression on the table, which didn't get me
> any space back.
> What tests do you need me to run to be able to say what might be wrong ?
>
> Regards
>
> /Jonas Ahlinder
>


Mime
View raw message