Am Sonntag, den 28.10.2007, 20:03 -0400 schrieb Andrew Jensen: > Now the fun part - performance and memory usage...gets a little dicey here. > > Last weekend I had Derby running as a server on my XP machine ( as > Localhost ). Yesterday I switched and used Derby in embedded mode right > in the same JVM as from Base. This was my plan from the start... ( yes I > noticed the todo item about embedding Derby in a Base file..so I wondered )
[...] > As long as the tables didn't have much data it is also fast, really > fast. ( well Duh! )..The memory usage is about 37 Megs just to open a > database - which is a little less then a embedded HSQL Base file on my > machine. ( I think - next weekend I'll do this all again with much more > detail on the memory usage) > > OK - time to bring out the Baseball statistics database - > > I simple test copy the table Master from the HSQL Embedded data Base > file to the new Derby EmbeddedDriver, disk storage data, Base file. The > file is 16,361 records and > > Alright - just ran out of time...LOL..meaning I have to stop typing not > that it didn't finish. I'll finish this in a little bit. The results of > working with Derby versus HSQL embedded on this table are rather > interesting. Sorry, but you would only have comparable results if you'd use the same environment regarding the databases. In this special case the only way of getting there would be to compare both in server mode on localhost, because even if Derby is running in it's embedded mode it is not undergoing the penalty of being stored into the .odb. Regards, Marc --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
