help in choosing DB engine for embedded application
Mirage ha wrote:
> I do not know if this is the correct place to post this question or
> not but as you have experience in embedded field i expected you
> will help me.
Although the question is not very specific to Gentoo I do agree with
you that it can be relevant in this group.
> I facing a problem in choosing database engine for my application
> my manager suggested to use files (e.g. txt files ) , i suggested
> to use berkeley db.
> So could you tell me which is better and if there is better solution
> (better db engine) please tell me.
Unfortunately there is no simple answer to this question. The best
solution depends on many things that probably only you or your
department knows; data structure, data access patterns (reads/writes
1:1, 10:1, 100:1 ?), number of updates per time period, size of
updates, and so on, and so on.
Choosing the best database solution is always a difficult task.
> also if there is link to good database benchmark comparison please
> send it.
For the reasons I mention above it is also very difficult to create
good database benchmarks. Some databases already include a
benchmarking suite, but that will be tuned to the particular workload
that the particular database handles the very best. It's marketing
Besides performance there can also be factors such as time to
market/previous developer experience to consider - if the system does
not have a critical performance requirement then it may be better to
choose a database which allows the most rapid delivery of the
And there are even further dimensions to the database question - it
is a very difficult one to answer.
If you can describe some of the things I mentioned above, in
particular the properties of your data, and the access patterns, then
it may be possible for people to offer suggestions - but knowing more
about the application may also only lead to more questions needed to
find the best answer.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13 PM.|
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.