I compared the performance on PostgreSQL vs. Derby for this report.
Unsurprisingly PostgreSQL performs much better.
The database that I'm working with has grown over the years. I have a
feeling that we crossed some threshold and that Derby performance has
decreased to the point where it is now ver
I did. See the stacktrace in my initial post.
On Apr 13, 2015 3:18 PM, "Tim Watts" wrote:
> Have you put the app under a profiler to see what components are taking
> the most time in each container? Seems like the best way to get some
> facts on the table.
>
>
> On Sun, 2015-04-12 at 23:50 +0200
Have you put the app under a profiler to see what components are taking
the most time in each container? Seems like the best way to get some
facts on the table.
On Sun, 2015-04-12 at 23:50 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having problems with performance degrading dramatically when I
>
I'll be trying to do more logging.
Do you have any handy pointers to documentation?
To log SQL statements seems like the most promising:
https://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.11/ref/rrefproper43517.html
I didn't find anything to log "connection IDs (distinct/count)".
I never tried JMX mbeans w/
And, by testing with a network server I think you can access JMX mbeans
with VisualVM/JConsole to check connection counts.
--
Kristian
13. apr. 2015 13:12 skrev "Kristian Waagan" :
> Hi Øivind,
>
> Have you turned on SQL-logging/-tracing in Derby to check the activity?
>
> Possible things to che
Hi Øivind,
Have you turned on SQL-logging/-tracing in Derby to check the activity?
Possible things to check:
o connection IDs (distinct/count)
o expensive connection validation queries (not all of these are direct SQL,
check pool docs/conf)
o commits?
o different queries?
While one would expect
I've made them identical near as I can. It isn't the same
implementation of the connection pool.
Is it only EmbeddedDriver that would be negatively affected by a
mis-configured connection pool?
Is there some logging in Derby that I could enable to verify that
things are set up correctly, i.e. tha
Are you sure that under Tomcat the application is really using the Tomcat
connection pool? If not that would certainly account for the differences.
Even if Tomcat DBCP is configured, checking that the pool configurations
are similar would seem like an important check.
-Brett
On Mon, Apr 13, 201
I know the Tomcat setup isn't using the clientdriver when it slows
down, because when I first tried to switch to the ClientDriver it
failed. After I copied the derbyclient.xxx.jar to tomcat/lib/, it
worked.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Dyre Tjeldvoll
wrote:
> On 04/13/2015 12:27 AM, Øyvin
On 04/13/2015 12:27 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I found another crucial clue:
if I use ClientDriver instead of EmbeddedDriver and connect to the
Derby database running under Jetty, I get identical performance with
Tomcat and Jetty.
This is very strong indication that there is something about the
c
10 matches
Mail list logo
