Matthew - as far as I understand it, JDB is _much_ newer than KDB. A disadvantage of this is that KDB almost certainly has better raw performance as they've been working on this problem for quite a while. In fact, someone like you who works with both systems would be in a better position to tell everyone here about relative performance.
An advantage of JDB's newness is that the early users of it can influence its direction. Personally, I'm more interested in ease of use, stability, integration with J (and, potentially, other environments), and ability to handle large datasets. Performance, assuming it's adequate, would be less of a consideration for me than these other things. I'm very interested in trying out JDB's capabilities but have not yet done so. Please report your experiences as you become more familiar with it. Regards, Devon On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Matthew Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi All, > > I am learning q/KDB to use at work currently, but am more familiar > with J. Does anybody know of a good essay which compares the > performance and capabilities of q/KDB with J? > > The biggest differences I can see so far is the built-in KDB side and > the built in use of dictionaries and tables in q - which is very > useful. JDB may be trying to provide a similar functionality to KDB? I > prefer J at the moment because it feels like it fits together better, > but that may be because it is what I am used to using. > > Has anybody done a performance/functionality comparison between q/KDB > and J/JDB? Is anybody using J to process tick data? > > > Thanks, > Matthew. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
