Olav Sandstaa wrote:
Great blog contribution, David! I also find the report highly biased
<snip ..>
Are there other necessary functionality present in Derby (and missing
in BDB) that is adding to the cost besides the JDBC and SQL layer? Or
is most of these 400% extra cost mostly contributed by "overhead of
SQL processing"? It would be great to get opinions from other on the
list on both if this is a reasonable overhead compared to BDB and what
are the causes for this overhead, and whether this is something that
we should try to improve. It could of course also be that BDB
is doing something either "very smart" or that the test that has been
run is not fair in some way.
Thanks,
Olav
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Using-Derby-as-a-binary-store-tf2696662.html
I agree with you 400% overhead due to SQ for simple queries is
unlikely. I wonder if DB is storing both key and values in one file.
In derby key (in tree) and values (in heap) are getting stored in
different files , may be this is causing an extra I/O in Derby for
this test.
Thanks
-surest
