[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-465?page=comments#action_12316222 ]
Peter Kovgan commented on DERBY-465: ------------------------------------ First of all: Thank you for your answers and good suggestions, I'll try to provide all information I have to describe my benchmark. Trust me I'm not PointBase advertiser and I have no intention to attack Derby, contrariwise I just want to resolve all these issues to find out better embedded DB for our project. Perhaps my benchmark based on wrong assumptions and may be my lack of knowledge leads me in wrong direction. Due to corporate policy ( this benchmark is not my own ) I can't publish all my source code and all requirements I have to test. But I can provide table structure, and clear test description. And I'll do it ASAP together with clarification of log status on PointBase. Thanks! > Embedded Derby-PointBase comparison > ----------------------------------- > > Key: DERBY-465 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-465 > Project: Derby > Type: Wish > Components: Test > Versions: 10.0.2.1, 10.0.2.0 > Environment: Windows Server 2003, 4 processors, summary CPU 3.00 Ghz, RAM 1 > Gb > Reporter: Peter Kovgan > Attachments: Benchmarks_info_independent.doc, derby-optimization.doc > > I have tested 4 major embedded DB. > I have found that major disadvantage of Derby is > 1)low insert speed and > 2)significant performance degradation in select, update, delete operation > speed starting from some table size. > PointBase in comparison has not such degradation. > It will be better if you improve your product. > Good luck and thank you. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
