Gads, I'm out of it today. Thanks, *Bryan*, not Mike... On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, David Van Couvering <da...@vancouvering.com > wrote:
> Thanks, Mike > > I am doing some of that, and am looking into doing more of that. > > But it's more than possible that I'll have a lot of open, *active* > databases. > > We're talking a lot of data, potentially 10s of GB of BLOBs. I was > concerned a single Derby DB would not be able to handle this well, so I > asplit this up into multiple databases. This also gives me future > flexibility to spread the databases across different disks to avoid > contention. > > But if you think this can be managed fine in a single database, well, I > could be convinced to go that way... :) > > Thanks, > > David > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Bryan Pendleton < > bpendleton.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi. Could you point me to a page, or just tell me, what >>> configuration settings I can tweak to reduce the overall memory >>> footprint of a booted Derby database. Losing performance is pretty much >>> OK, this is not a time-critical part of our code, but I have a lot of >>> databases open and it's impacting memory footprint pretty significantly. >>> >> >> If you can manage the performance hit, I think the best way to keep >> a lid on the overall resource usage is to change your approach, and *not* >> keep a lot of databases open, but rather close each database when it's >> not in use, and then re-open it upon demand. >> >> thanks, >> >> bryan >> >> > > > -- > David W. Van Couvering > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidvc > http://davidvancouvering.blogspot.com > http://twitter.com/dcouvering > -- David W. Van Couvering http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidvc http://davidvancouvering.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/dcouvering
