db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Kotek <openco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: performance, memory consumption...and a big hello :)
Date Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:00:19 GMT
Hi Tomi,

maybe give try to H2 database. For simple usages as yours I found it better.


On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Tomi N/A<hefest@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> first of all, it's great to have a RDBMS like derby around!
> Now, on to the 2 problems I'm trying to resolve...
> Situation: 1 table, 15+ million rows, 4 integer values (id, id_group1,
> id_group2, id_group3), 750MB size on disk, derby in network mode
> Problem 1:
> select id_group, count(id)
> group by id_group
> This takes a couple of minutes, basically regardless of what I tried
> with indexes. I'd like it to take <10s if possible.
> Problem 2:
> It seemed to me that the query triggers a sequential scan (I see a lot
> of disk activity) and so I created a disk in memory and restored the
> database to this disk, expecting the query to be close to
> instantaneous. Better, but still horrible (80 sec).
> Which brings me to the crux of the 2nd problem: this in-memory
> exercise was without indexes, so I tried to create some (id_group1 and
> id for a start). However, the indexes seem to be _huge_ at 300-400MB
> each and spike at about 700MB before the index is completely created -
> I was quite surprised to see the indexes ttake more than several dozen
> MB.
> So, is there a way to reduce index size? And would any kind of indexes
> help the type of query I'm interested in?
> (Machine: Ubuntu Jaunty, 1.7GHz Pentium M, 2GB RAM, 5400 rpm disk)
> Thanks,
> Tomislav
> --
> www.PanBI.org: business intelligence everywhere!

View raw message