Limit on number of rows a table can hold?

[Tim Troup]

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

[Derby-3]

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:tim.troup@...]
> 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-2]

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.

derby@... 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:tim.troup@...]
>>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

[Ryan P Bobko]

Even if you need billions of rows, are you sure you want that in an
embedded database? I'm the biggest fan of Derby I know, but if I'd say
if you're talking about accessing possibly terabytes of data, maybe you
should spring for a complete industrial strength RDBMS.

ry

>
> 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:tim.troup@...]
> > 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
>
>
>
>

[Michael Segel]

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:arick@...]
> 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.
>
> derby@... 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:tim.troup@...]
> >>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

[Nurullah Akkaya]

i have a 20 gb table with over 100 million rows thats growing 1 million rows per day. i think it depends on what you trying to achieve my application distributes a big database over a bunch of machines so running a separate heavy server process was causing me problems and switching derby saved a lot of resources and application is much faster. but i am sure there is some body else's application that will be much faster under DB2 or oracle.

Nurullah Akkaya                                                   

On Feb 20, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Tim Troup wrote:

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

[David Van Couvering-2]

Hi, Nurullah.  You say that you spread the database over a bunch of
machines.  Does that mean you're running multiple Derby instances, each
embedded into a process running on a different machine?  Or do you have
one Derby instance that holds a 20gb table?

David

Nurullah Akkaya wrote:

> i have a 20 gb table with over 100 million rows thats growing 1 million
> rows per day. i think it depends on what you trying to achieve my
> application distributes a big database over a bunch of machines so
> running a separate heavy server process was causing me problems and
> switching derby saved a lot of resources and application is much faster.
> but i am sure there is some body else's application that will be much
> faster under DB2 or oracle.
>
>
>
> Nurullah Akkaya                                                  
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Tim Troup wrote:
>
>> 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
>

[Nurullah Akkaya]

Hi David,

each machine has its own database(in embedded mode), distribution is  
done via our application each machine holds roughly 20gb of data

Nurullah

On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:49 PM, David Van Couvering wrote:

> Hi, Nurullah.  You say that you spread the database over a bunch of  
> machines.  Does that mean you're running multiple Derby instances,  
> each embedded into a process running on a different machine?  Or do  
> you have one Derby instance that holds a 20gb table?
>
> David
>
> Nurullah Akkaya wrote:
>> i have a 20 gb table with over 100 million rows thats growing 1  
>> million rows per day. i think it depends on what you trying to  
>> achieve my application distributes a big database over a bunch of  
>> machines so running a separate heavy server process was causing me  
>> problems and switching derby saved a lot of resources and  
>> application is much faster. but i am sure there is some body  
>> else's application that will be much faster under DB2 or oracle.
>> Nurullah Akkaya                                                    
>> On Feb 20, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Tim Troup wrote:
>>> 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