Marc Santhoff wrote:
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
True, then we will have a hard explaining why Derby is slower then an
embedded HSQL database when used this way won't we.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]