[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-110?page=comments#action_12332212 ]
Olav Sandstaa commented on DERBY-110: ------------------------------------- Since Derby is basically designed to log transaction to durable memory/disk, I do not think it is a bug that Derby is unable to compete with a main-memory database like HSQLDB with regards to insert performance. If nobody objects, I propose that we close this JIRA-issue with a status of that we will not fix this problem. If someone wants to extend Derby to become a main-memory database I think it will be better to open a separate JIRA issue for that. > hsqldb is faster than derby doing inserts > ----------------------------------------- > > Key: DERBY-110 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-110 > Project: Derby > Type: Test > Components: Performance > Versions: 10.0.2.1 > Environment: CPU 2.40GHz > windows 2000 > Reporter: Zhang Jinsheng > Priority: Minor > > 1. create db name systable in derby and hsqldb (another open source dbms); > 2. create table named a table ('CREATE TABLE aTable(id INTEGER NOT NULL, name > VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, description VARCHAR(255))'); > 3. insert ten thousands row in table "atable" > for(int i=1; i<10000; i++) { > sql = "INSERT INTO aTable VALUES("+i+", 'haha', 'zhang'' test')"; > stmt.execute(sql); > System.out.println(i); > } > 4. derby spend 50390 millisecond; > hsqldb spend 4250 millisecond; > > 5. conclusion: hsqldb has more perfect performance. > Maybe derby need to improve it's performance. -- 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
