[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12557583#action_12557583
]
Øystein Grøvlen commented on DERBY-3312:
----------------------------------------
Are you saying that retrieving records over the network is faster than local
retrieval? Or just that the slow-down with the new version is larger for local
retrieval than for remote retrieval? If the former, it sounds like running the
clients and the server on the same computer makes the system CPU-bound. That
is, that either clients or server or both use more CPU with 10.3.
I would very much like to be able to reproduce your problems. If possible, it
would be nice if you could post the DDL for the table and some information
about size distribution for the Blobs involved. (If I understand you correctly
there is max. 500 rows in the table.) Also of interest is what the clients do
(JDBC code)? Is it just a sequence of getXXX calls for selected columns of the
table?
> Local Network Server Performance
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-3312
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3312
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Network Server
> Affects Versions: 10.2.1.6, 10.2.2.0, 10.3.1.4, 10.3.2.1
> Environment: Intel x86 based server SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 10
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_03-b05)
> Derby 10.3.2.1
> Reporter: Timothy Graf
>
> We have a Java based XML-RPC client/server product that incorporates an
> embedded Derby database and network server. Our client uses the derby JDBC
> ndriver and network client to connect to the Derby Network Server.
> We recently moved from Cloudscape, which I believe used the 10.1.3.1 Derby
> code, because of other issues which seem to be resolved by moving to the
> latest Derby release. We have a very simple database with a simple table.
> This table does include BLOBs, however its size has not been an issue and we
> limit our records to 500.
> Since moving to the latest release of Derby, version 10.3.2.1, we noticed
> that our clients running on the same machine as our server take much longer
> to retrieve a list of records from the database. Our clients running on a
> remote machine do not seem to have any performance issues when retrieving the
> same list of records.
> We start our Network Server in Java through the API so I don't think the
> Security Manager is the issue. I read that performance could be affected by
> the Security Manager, but according to the Derby documentation,
> "The Network Server will not attempt to install a security manager if you
> start the server from your application using the programmatic API ..."
> I tried going back several releases of Derby and the performance issue seems
> to go away when I run with version 10.1.3.1 of Derby. However we see the
> same issue that we saw with Cloudscape in that we can not turn off connection
> logging. We also had stability problems with the Network Server with
> Cloudscape.
> We would really prefer to use the latest Derby release however the
> performance issues are a sever limitation. I thought that maybe this was a
> simple Network Server configuration issue however after researching this
> issue I have not found anything from a configuration standpoint that may help.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
