Well, the default DB is just for samples anyway ;) No real project is using that stuff I guess ^^
LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2012 5:28 PM > Subject: Re: why do we use hsqldb? > >t he issue with derbye is it is slow in embedded mode compared to hsqldb > > > - Romain > > > 2012/7/9 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> Size is from 0 to 600kB. Derby comes out of the box in JDK5 and 6 afaik. >> Not sure if it's part of JRE though. >> Start time should be measured. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: David Blevins <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Cc: >> > Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 5:02 PM >> > Subject: Re: why do we use hsqldb? >> > >> > >> > On Jul 6, 2012, at 4:21 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> > >> >> http://www.h2database.com/html/performance.html >> >> >> >> that's biased because of the source but derby seems pretty > slow which >> > is >> >> not so fine for tests >> > >> > Performance & size. We can certainly check it out again. >> > >> > If it adds even 500ms on the embedded boot time, that'd be too > much. Our >> > embedded test times have gotten slower. Hopefully something we can >> investigate >> > more at some point -- I have looked into it a bit. >> > >> > Test times of injection-of-entitymanager on my machine: >> > >> > - 4.1.0, 2.459 sec >> > - 3.1.4, 1.903 sec >> > >> > Would hate to see that go up more than it has. >> > >> > >> > -David >> > >> >> 2012/7/6 AndyG <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> +1 Derby >> >>> >> >>> Using it for a long time in production. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> View this message in context: >> >>> >> > >> > http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/why-do-we-use-hsqldb-tp4656087p4656098.html >> >>> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >>> >> > >> >
