Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news-out.news.tds.net!newsreading01.news.tds.net!86597e80!not-for-mail From: "David Segall" Subject: Re: Writing a Movie Datab Message-ID: X-Comment-To: comp.lang.java.gui Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.gui In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=IBM437 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gateway: time.synchro.net [Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92] Lines: 50 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:27:42 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.60.20.240 X-Complaints-To: news@tds.net X-Trace: newsreading01.news.tds.net 1303918062 96.60.20.240 (Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:27:42 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:27:42 CDT Organization: TDS.net Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.gui:467 To: comp.lang.java.gui "Larry Barowski" wrote: > >"David Segall" wrote in message >news:lbvfo2djiv6kfdlrh3tugcrcgh74jrdiij@4ax.com... >> It is unlikely that one programmer can write code that outperforms the >> code written by teams of open source programmers or those from IBM, >> Oracle or Microsoft. Their code has been subjected to competitive >> benchmark timing tests over many years. > >I don't get your argument here. General purpose database software is >competitive in the sense that it is compared to other general purpose >database software. Not using such software may be orders of magnitude >faster than using it, depending on the purpose. > >> How can from tens to hundreds of lines of Java be simpler than one SQL >> statement and, at most, five template lines of Java to execute it? > >It would be simpler in the project sense rather than the lines-of-code >sense. > >> The database software consists of a couple jar files that must be >> included with the application. Derby requires about 2MB which would >> only be a problem if you were writing software for a microwave oven. > >Those jar files are fairly large though. I work on a medium-sized >(250 KLOC) project which is about a 3 meg download. Adding the >necessary jar files from Derby would slightly more than double the >download size and load on our servers. We have lots of data that is >accessed by single keys only, which is stored in a custom >flat-files+index-files database. For efficiency, the data is organized >and accesses are cached in a very domain-specific way. Using >standard database software would be several times slower at best, >and the difference in speed would be noticeable to users. > I thought I covered your application in my response to your first post which was "Apart from a few read-only applications like the main dictionary of a spell checker what advantage is there in not using a database?" I cannot question your analysis of your own application. However, I think that your advice to the OP who has a standard CRUD application is wrong. There are probably applications that should use their own implementation of java.text but, for the rest of us, a library of optimised, pre-tested code that we don't need to write or maintain is far superior. --- * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out free usenet! --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92 Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24