http://ofbiz.116.s1.nabble.com/OFBiz-Dev-why-did-derby-replace-hsql-tp166224p166229.html
Thanks for the feedback, everybody. What has worked for me is in that
PostgreSQL/MySQL for production. I wonder what David, Andy, and others'
>>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>
>
>