Roll over and dies? The OP's question was could Derby handle a billion or more rows. The answer is that it depends.
At the same time, a table with a billion rows will be less efficient than a table with a million rows. So the first question is why a billion rows in a single table? To your point... Derby isn't *free*. If you want to compare Derby to Oracle, Informix and DB2 then you have to consider that with Oracle, Informix and DB2, you are paying a company for support. So you should be comparing JavaDB, Cloudscape to Oracle, Informix and DB2. You may not break Derby, but will it perform as well as other databases? > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Rick Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:45 AM > To: Derby Discussion > Subject: Re: Limit on number of rows a table can hold? > > But we'd all like to know at what point it rolls over and dies :-) > There's a reason that Derby is free and Oracle, DB2 etc cost budko bucks. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Billions of rows? > > Sounds like you'll need to rethink your design. > > Sure you can do it, but how efficient will it be? > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Tim Troup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:55 AM > >>To: Derby Discussion > >>Subject: Limit on number of rows a table can hold? > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>Is there a limit on the number of rows a table can hold? > >>I am planning on using derby as the RDBMS for a system that will > >>require tables to hold billions of rows. > >> > >>Thanks, Tim > > > > > > > > > > > -- > A. Rick Anderson
