Re: hsqldb vs. derby
- From: Boris Stumm <stumm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:11:27 +0200
Zsolt Koppany wrote:
our application runs right now with mysql but we would also like to
support a java DB either hsqldb or derby. I have never worked with them
but know mysql. We have approx. 100 tables and couple of hundred queries
and some of them are pretty complicated.
Number of tables does not matter, its the number of tupels in the tables.
I'll assume several thousand and more per table.
I used hsqldb as memory-only db, and there, inserts and _simple_ queries
were faster than derby.
But for your case, I'd say that hsqldb will not be a good choice. It
seems that there is basically NO optimizer, and the order of tables in
the from clause decides if the same query takes a second or a day.
Since you have some hundred queries which you'd maybe have to rewrite
and "manually optimize", I think you will have less effort if you just
take derby and trust their optimizer. If you rely on subselects, even
manually rearranging the order of tables will not work in all cases
with hsqldb, while derby seems to do a good optimization job.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: hsqldb vs. derby
- From: Zsolt Koppany
- Re: hsqldb vs. derby
- References:
- hsqldb vs. derby
- From: Zsolt Koppany
- hsqldb vs. derby
- Prev by Date: Re: Java, Sybase and CallableStatement
- Next by Date: ResultSet.updateString against DB2 giving "Column not updatable"
- Previous by thread: Re: hsqldb vs. derby
- Next by thread: Re: hsqldb vs. derby
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
