Reducing memory footprint of embedded Derby

2010-07-20 Thread David Van Couvering
Hi, all. 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 impact

Re: Reducing memory footprint of embedded Derby

2010-07-20 Thread Bryan Pendleton
Hi, all. 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 impac

Re: Reducing memory footprint of embedded Derby

2010-07-20 Thread David Van Couvering
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

Re: Reducing memory footprint of embedded Derby

2010-07-20 Thread David Van Couvering
Gads, I'm out of it today. Thanks, *Bryan*, not Mike... On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, David Van Couvering 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 t

Re: Reducing memory footprint of embedded Derby

2010-07-21 Thread Mike Matrigali
David Van Couvering 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 b

Re: Reducing memory footprint of embedded Derby

2010-07-21 Thread David Van Couvering
OK, thanks, very useful. David On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Mike Matrigali wrote: > David Van Couvering 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