> Hello, > > I'm running an embedded Derby database in my java application. I want > to use one single file for my database (not the directory with > seperate files), so I stored it in a jar file and used the derby:jar: > protocol in the connection url. However, compared to using the > 'non-jarred' database, my select queries are slower (I don't use > compression the jar file), is this normal? > > Thanks for the info! > > Best wishes, > Thomas >
I run derby from a CD. I haven't noticed a difference between using a jar or using a directory, though I suspect the latency from the CD would hide any. So, I tried both ways from the HDD in a totally unscientific test (select * from a table). >From the jar: real 0m1.699s user 0m1.580s sys 0m0.072s >From the directory: real 0m2.026s user 0m1.704s sys 0m0.092s I repeated the test several times with consistent results. Anecdotally, I'd say the jar is faster. ry
