Artem Melentyev wrote:
> Derby looks like a good choose, even it is probably slower than hsqldb.
> Derby is more powerful than hsqldb in some complex stuff like 
> transactions, sql fuctions and jdbc extensions.
> We should test latest versions to see current performance of Derby.
> 
> Another variant is h2database.com which supposed to be faster than 
> hsqldb (h2 is fork of hsqldb). But it is less powerful than Derby too. 
> (no setCatalog)
> 
> So +1 for derby.
> 
> We could try to use db4o, but I think we shouldn't do it now. I think it 
> is not worthy effort for now. (new access api, no sql-like language)
> I'll try it only after JCRStore will be done.

Yes, agreed, DB4O is just something that could be tried if there isn't
anything else to do.

> Also I would like to propose to use UTF-8 as default encoding for 
> standalone distribution.
> AFAIK the major issue against utf8 is we can't control some parts like 
> DB or AppServer which configured for ISO for default (in some cases :)).
> In standalone distribution we control everything, so there are no 
> problems with utf8.
> (note: currently hsqldb and jetty works fine without explicit utf8 
> configuration. only xwiki.cfg, web.xml and hibernate.cfg.xml need to be 
> configured)

+111


> Vincent Massol wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> For switching to Derby, I'm not convinced.
>> I'm very positive for Derby (even though I haven't used it myself a  
>> lot). It has made lots of progress in the past few years and it's  
>> production ready, which is definitely NOT the case for HSQLDB.
>>
>> Performances are very similar to MySQL and other DBs (see link I gave).
>>
>> It supports Catalogs/Schema (AFAIK) so that it will even work with  
>> multiwiki (which isn't the case for HSQLDB).
>>
>> DB4O has always been something at the level of research for me but  
>> then I haven't checked it out for the past 4 years so it's likely it  
>> has evolved.
>>
>> But right now Derby makes more sense for us.
>>
>> I'm not sure at all (I would even say no) that Artem should work on  
>> this since I haven't heard any request from XWiki users/customers to  
>> use DB4O and I would prefer that Artem works on some feature that are  
>> more requested by our users when he's done with JCR/QueryManager.
>>
>> I don't have the slightest doubt that Derby is better than HSQLDB for  
>> this use case. Now we could keep our current packaging and just add  
>> this new one but I think we might just not have enough manpower to  
>> maintain both so I would keep the HSQLDB one but not make it the  
>> default so that what we release would be Derby+Jetty+ServiceWrapper.
>>
>> That said all this is hypothetical for now since I want to finish the  
>> new rendering before moving to something else so I won't be working on  
>> this anytime soon. Of course if someone else is interested please go  
>> ahead.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>
>>> I don't know if you know
>>> about PolePosition, a database benchmarking project. Some older  
>>> results
>>> (I can't seem to find product versions on that site, or a date, but  
>>> the
>>> HTML pages were modified a year ago) shows that HSQL (without  
>>> Hibernate)
>>> is a clear winner, although it manages to do that because it keeps  
>>> most
>>> of the data in memory, so data might be lost if the server is not
>>> cleanly shutdown. Here's the page:
>>> http://polepos.sourceforge.net/results/html/index.html
>>>
>>> Some things to notice:
>>> - Hibernate adds serious overhead.
>>> - When using hibernate, HSQL is faster than MySQL.
>>> - A very good storage mechanism would be DB4O, which is also in-java,
>>> and which can work directly with objects (an object oriented  
>>> database).
>>> Converting from objects to tables and back is inefficient, and
>>> communicating over JDBC adds even more overhead, while storing objects
>>> directly is much faster. Also, complex/deep queries are the fastest in
>>> this DB (see Barcelona/query, where DB4O is between 67 and 2500 (!)
>>> times faster than HSQL+Hibernate, and up to 47000 times faster than
>>> Derby *without* Hibernate). Artem, do you think you could try to
>>> implement direct DB4O storage after you finish improving storage
>>> refactoring and the query manager?
>>> - At least in the versions used when this test was made, Derby (JavaDB
>>> as it is called here) is among the slowest in most tests.
>>>
>>> Could someone download PolePosition and run it on recent versions of
>>> Derby and HSQLD, with Hibernate in front of them, to get some recent
>>> comparison data?
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> 
> 


-- 
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Reply via email to