[OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql?
Locked
 
|
Hi everyone -
Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? I just turned it back to HSQL and found that 1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually takes 5+ minutes on Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. 2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data problems that I was having with Derby. So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good or better as a default demo database? Si _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql?
|
|
I asked the same question a while back now, as I also
preferred hsql for speed and the text format which made tweaking data easy for development. Derby does have it's problems, but it also has better db functionality like foreign keys. I've not compared the two lately so wont list features but it was considered to be better to have a more restrictive db for development to catch bugs earlier in the process. Basically I couldn't argue against that and haven't yet seen a better replacment for Derby. Maybe Oracle's new freebie db hmmmm..... Ray --- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi everyone - > > Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? > I just turned it > back to HSQL and found that > 1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually > takes 5+ minutes on > Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. > 2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data > problems that I was having > with Derby. > > So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good > or better as a > default demo database? > > Si > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
|
|
Ray,
I just ran the entity engine tests and HSQL passed all the ones for transactions and fk constraints. It is not as scalable a database and all else equal, Derby may be better. But the real reason for suggesting that we go back to HSQL as the development database is that it can then allow us to fix the outstanding blob problem for HSQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL - so we'll have an entity engine that works on a testing/demo database and the two main deployment databases. See comments at the end of http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-334 Si Ray Barlow wrote: >I asked the same question a while back now, as I also >preferred hsql for speed and the text format which >made tweaking data easy for development. > >Derby does have it's problems, but it also has better >db functionality like foreign keys. I've not compared >the two lately so wont list features but it was >considered to be better to have a more restrictive db >for development to catch bugs earlier in the process. >Basically I couldn't argue against that and haven't >yet seen a better replacment for Derby. > >Maybe Oracle's new freebie db hmmmm..... > >Ray > >--- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >>Hi everyone - >> >>Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? >>I just turned it >>back to HSQL and found that >>1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually >>takes 5+ minutes on >>Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. >>2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data >>problems that I was having >>with Derby. >> >>So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good >>or better as a >>default demo database? >> >>Si >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Dev mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Dev mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql?
|
|
Hi Si,
one problem of HSQL is that it doesn't manage correctly fields' lengths: for example you can store (at least you could, last time I tested it) strings longer than the field's length without errors. Another consideration is that you could use DerbyDb also in a production system (in small companies), However you are right, HSQL is incredibly fast and efficient for development! So I really don't know which is the best way to go. Any other commets/suggestions? Jacopo Si Chen wrote: > Ray, > > I just ran the entity engine tests and HSQL passed all the ones for > transactions and fk constraints. > > It is not as scalable a database and all else equal, Derby may be > better. But the real reason for suggesting that we go back to HSQL as > the development database is that it can then allow us to fix the > outstanding blob problem for HSQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL - so we'll have > an entity engine that works on a testing/demo database and the two main > deployment databases. > > See comments at the end of > http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-334 > > Si > > Ray Barlow wrote: > >> I asked the same question a while back now, as I also >> preferred hsql for speed and the text format which >> made tweaking data easy for development. >> >> Derby does have it's problems, but it also has better >> db functionality like foreign keys. I've not compared >> the two lately so wont list features but it was >> considered to be better to have a more restrictive db >> for development to catch bugs earlier in the process. >> Basically I couldn't argue against that and haven't >> yet seen a better replacment for Derby. >> >> Maybe Oracle's new freebie db hmmmm..... >> >> Ray >> >> --- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi everyone - >>> >>> Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? I just turned it >>> back to HSQL and found that >>> 1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually >>> takes 5+ minutes on Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. >>> 2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data >>> problems that I was having with Derby. >>> >>> So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good >>> or better as a default demo database? >>> >>> Si >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql?
Administrator
|
That's not a big problem for developpers, they can change as they want
Jacques ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[hidden email]> To: "OFBiz Project Development Discussion" <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql? > Hi Si, > > one problem of HSQL is that it doesn't manage correctly fields' lengths: > for example you can store (at least you could, last time I tested it) > strings longer than the field's length without errors. > > Another consideration is that you could use DerbyDb also in a production > system (in small companies), > > However you are right, HSQL is incredibly fast and efficient for > development! > > So I really don't know which is the best way to go. > > Any other commets/suggestions? > > Jacopo > > > Si Chen wrote: > > Ray, > > > > I just ran the entity engine tests and HSQL passed all the ones for > > transactions and fk constraints. > > > > It is not as scalable a database and all else equal, Derby may be > > better. But the real reason for suggesting that we go back to HSQL as > > the development database is that it can then allow us to fix the > > outstanding blob problem for HSQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL - so we'll have > > an entity engine that works on a testing/demo database and the two main > > deployment databases. > > > > See comments at the end of > > http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-334 > > > > Si > > > > Ray Barlow wrote: > > > >> I asked the same question a while back now, as I also > >> preferred hsql for speed and the text format which > >> made tweaking data easy for development. > >> > >> Derby does have it's problems, but it also has better > >> db functionality like foreign keys. I've not compared > >> the two lately so wont list features but it was > >> considered to be better to have a more restrictive db > >> for development to catch bugs earlier in the process. > >> Basically I couldn't argue against that and haven't > >> yet seen a better replacment for Derby. > >> > >> Maybe Oracle's new freebie db hmmmm..... > >> > >> Ray > >> > >> --- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi everyone - > >>> > >>> Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? I just turned it > >>> back to HSQL and found that > >>> 1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually > >>> takes 5+ minutes on Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. > >>> 2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data > >>> problems that I was having with Derby. > >>> > >>> So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good > >>> or better as a default demo database? > >>> > >>> Si > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Dev mailing list > >>> [hidden email] > >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Dev mailing list > >> [hidden email] > >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql?
|
|
In reply to this post by Si Chen-2
If the main recommended production databases have issues that are being
held up by the development use of Derby then I don't think there is any choice, but to stop using Derby. We should always prioritise the likes of PostgreSQL over Derby. Ray Si Chen wrote: > Ray, > > I just ran the entity engine tests and HSQL passed all the ones for > transactions and fk constraints. > > It is not as scalable a database and all else equal, Derby may be > better. But the real reason for suggesting that we go back to HSQL as > the development database is that it can then allow us to fix the > outstanding blob problem for HSQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL - so we'll > have an entity engine that works on a testing/demo database and the > two main deployment databases. > > See comments at the end of > http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-334 > > Si > > Ray Barlow wrote: > >> I asked the same question a while back now, as I also >> preferred hsql for speed and the text format which >> made tweaking data easy for development. >> >> Derby does have it's problems, but it also has better >> db functionality like foreign keys. I've not compared >> the two lately so wont list features but it was >> considered to be better to have a more restrictive db >> for development to catch bugs earlier in the process. >> Basically I couldn't argue against that and haven't >> yet seen a better replacment for Derby. >> >> Maybe Oracle's new freebie db hmmmm..... >> >> Ray >> >> --- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi everyone - >>> >>> Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? I just turned it >>> back to HSQL and found that >>> 1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually >>> takes 5+ minutes on Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. >>> 2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data >>> problems that I was having with Derby. >>> >>> So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good >>> or better as a default demo database? >>> >>> Si >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dev mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql?
|
Administrator
|
>We should always prioritise the likes
> of PostgreSQL over Derby. I agree. Actually, I always use PostGres. Perhaps HSQL is really faster for demo ? Jacques ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray" <[hidden email]> To: "OFBiz Project Development Discussion" <[hidden email]> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql? > If the main recommended production databases have issues that are being > held up by the development use of Derby then I don't think there is any > choice, but to stop using Derby. We should always prioritise the likes > of PostgreSQL over Derby. > > Ray > > Si Chen wrote: > > > Ray, > > > > I just ran the entity engine tests and HSQL passed all the ones for > > transactions and fk constraints. > > > > It is not as scalable a database and all else equal, Derby may be > > better. But the real reason for suggesting that we go back to HSQL as > > the development database is that it can then allow us to fix the > > outstanding blob problem for HSQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL - so we'll > > have an entity engine that works on a testing/demo database and the > > two main deployment databases. > > > > See comments at the end of > > http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-334 > > > > Si > > > > Ray Barlow wrote: > > > >> I asked the same question a while back now, as I also > >> preferred hsql for speed and the text format which > >> made tweaking data easy for development. > >> > >> Derby does have it's problems, but it also has better > >> db functionality like foreign keys. I've not compared > >> the two lately so wont list features but it was > >> considered to be better to have a more restrictive db > >> for development to catch bugs earlier in the process. > >> Basically I couldn't argue against that and haven't > >> yet seen a better replacment for Derby. > >> > >> Maybe Oracle's new freebie db hmmmm..... > >> > >> Ray > >> > >> --- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi everyone - > >>> > >>> Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? I just turned it > >>> back to HSQL and found that > >>> 1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually > >>> takes 5+ minutes on Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. > >>> 2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data > >>> problems that I was having with Derby. > >>> > >>> So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good > >>> or better as a default demo database? > >>> > >>> Si > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Dev mailing list > >>> [hidden email] > >>> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Dev mailing list > >> [hidden email] > >> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, everybody. What has worked for me is in that
JIRA issue below, and it seems to be good with HSQL for demo and PostgreSQL/MySQL for production. I wonder what David, Andy, and others' experience has been like? Si Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>We should always prioritise the likes >>of PostgreSQL over Derby. >> >> > >I agree. Actually, I always use PostGres. Perhaps HSQL is really faster for demo >? > >Jacques > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ray" <[hidden email]> >To: "OFBiz Project Development Discussion" <[hidden email]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:04 AM >Subject: Re: [OFBiz] Dev - why did derby replace hsql? > > > > >>If the main recommended production databases have issues that are being >>held up by the development use of Derby then I don't think there is any >>choice, but to stop using Derby. We should always prioritise the likes >>of PostgreSQL over Derby. >> >>Ray >> >>Si Chen wrote: >> >> >> >>>Ray, >>> >>>I just ran the entity engine tests and HSQL passed all the ones for >>>transactions and fk constraints. >>> >>>It is not as scalable a database and all else equal, Derby may be >>>better. But the real reason for suggesting that we go back to HSQL as >>>the development database is that it can then allow us to fix the >>>outstanding blob problem for HSQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL - so we'll >>>have an entity engine that works on a testing/demo database and the >>>two main deployment databases. >>> >>>See comments at the end of >>>http://jira.undersunconsulting.com/browse/OFBIZ-334 >>> >>>Si >>> >>>Ray Barlow wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I asked the same question a while back now, as I also >>>>preferred hsql for speed and the text format which >>>>made tweaking data easy for development. >>>> >>>>Derby does have it's problems, but it also has better >>>>db functionality like foreign keys. I've not compared >>>>the two lately so wont list features but it was >>>>considered to be better to have a more restrictive db >>>>for development to catch bugs earlier in the process. >>>>Basically I couldn't argue against that and haven't >>>>yet seen a better replacment for Derby. >>>> >>>>Maybe Oracle's new freebie db hmmmm..... >>>> >>>>Ray >>>> >>>>--- Si Chen <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi everyone - >>>>> >>>>>Why did Derby replace HSQL as the default database? I just turned it >>>>>back to HSQL and found that >>>>>1) It was blazing fast. A run-install that usually >>>>>takes 5+ minutes on Derby took 1 minute 46 seconds on HSQL. >>>>>2) I was able to avoid some BLOB/BINARY data >>>>>problems that I was having with Derby. >>>>> >>>>>So, just kind of curious - wouldn't HSQL be as good >>>>>or better as a default demo database? >>>>> >>>>>Si >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Dev mailing list >>>>>[hidden email] >>>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Dev mailing list >>>>[hidden email] >>>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Dev mailing list >>>[hidden email] >>>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>> >>> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>Dev mailing list >>[hidden email] >>http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Dev mailing list >[hidden email] >http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |