Sorry, what I should have said was that with the relaxed durability
approach, we really need a mode where if there is a crash you can reboot
the db in a consistent state, which as I understand it doesn't exist
today. If you are a pure in-memory solution, you have automatic
"consistency" because your data disappears if the VM goes down. :)
David
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
I have to agree, we need a more useful "memory-based" solution that
guarantees consistency if not durability.
So just to repeat myself, the current relaxed durability matches a
memory based solution in terms of consistency, ie. no problems.
Durability is similar for both though with the current disk-based scheme
and relaxed durability there are cases where the database will exist
after a re-boot, where with the in-memory solution the data will be gone.
Not saying an in-memory solution might not be useful, but the relaxed
durability will give similar performance benefits since the data will be
cached in memory, either within Derby or within the OS filesystem.
Dan.
begin:vcard
fn:David W Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David W
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
