We have installed 2 instance of same application in a same datacenter. Both the app is using same oracle DB. But we are observing performance issue in one application. In AppDynamics we can see the response time of one application is much higher that other.
Is it possible to intentionally prioritise/configure the DB such a way. If yes, where should I look into the database.
Any Idea why this is happening? I am totally clueless here.
In theory, yes: if Resource Manager has been enabled it could be the case that different Resource Manager plans have such an impact but experience shows that this feature is seldom used.
In practive this kind of difference can have many cause:-
different SQL statements run
data is different
database statistics differences
different database configuration
different hardware
etc.
The first thing to look at database level is something similar to Statspack report (or AWR if licensing allows) to compare database configuration and activity.
And don't forget that application performance is not only database performance it depends also on application server, network and front-end.
We are having an application i.e. exposing RESTful web services and we are targeting this application to be deployed in cloud. We need to one time setup a database schema for the application on some database instance in the cloud.
Can someone tell me if it is a good approach to use migrations with liquibase for the one time database schema setup. We will be using alter scripts in case some DDL modification needed in future releases.
Someone stop me if I'm wrong, but the fact you application will be deplyed on the cloud only mean it will be on a virtual server hosted by an extern compagnie, wich in the case of your question don't chance anything.
So the question is "is the database versionning system Liquibase on a database with an aimed stable shema worth it".
In absolute it could be considered overkill, and a lot of big companies still manage database schema evolution with bare sql scripts. You could simply export the final built script of your developpement database and go with it.
But since you know Liquibase, the overhead is pretty cheap, and the comfort of using if you happen to have to modify tour shema later is important.
So yes, I think it's a pretty good pratice (safer than hand applying script under the stress of a production server problem) which cost one or two hours(given you know how to use the tool) and can save dozens when having to handle hotfixing of a production database.
I assume that you will be deploying this application in more than one place - not just production in the cloud, but also development servers, test servers, staging, etc. If that is true, then it seems to me that you definitely want to have a process around how you make changes to the database schema.
For me, over the course of my 20+ years in software development, I have seen several things that I use now that were not in common use when I started but that have now become 'baseline' practices on any project I work on. Yeah, I used to work without source control, but that is an absolute must now. I used to write software without tests, but not any more. I used to work without continuous integration, but that is yet another practice that I consider a must-have. The most recent addition to my must-have list is some sort of automated database migration process.
Also, since Liquibase is built-in to Dropwizard, I don't see any reason not to use it.
Does anyone know of a Java compatible Relational Database Management System, like Microsoft Access, that doesn't require a server side daemon to manage concurrent IO?
Without a server process somewhere, you're talking about a database library like HSQLDB, Derby or SQLite. They work reasonably well as long as you're not expecting lots of concurrent updates to be performant or stuff like that. Those DB servers that are so awkward to set up have a real purpose…
Be aware that if you're using a distributed filesystem to allow multiple users access to the database, you're going to need distributed locking to work (really very painful; too many SO questions to pick a good one to point to) or you're going to have only one process having a connection open at once (very limiting). Again, that's when a DB server makes sense.
I'm looking for the best database software for a new open source application. The primary criteria is it has to be lightning fast for searching among tens of thousands of entries. Ideally it would be entirely Java based but simply having a Java API is OK. I'm looking to license under GPL so the project would have to be compatible with that. So far SQLite seems to be the most ubiquitous solution but I don't want to overlook something else if it could turn out to be better.
When I search the general internet, most results seems to be for object databases. I don't care if the database is object-based or relational, and I don't think I care if it's "NoSQL" . I have lots of experience with MySQL but I'm not terribly afraid of learning a new query language or interface if it's faster that way. The main kind of data this will be managing is filenames with at least 20 metadata fields attached; I'd want to have multiple datasets with the same fields, and it would be nice to also store some application preferences in the database.
I see from some responses that there may be confusion about my (former) use of "embedded" in the title. I want to clarify that I mean "embedded in the application and redistributed" and not "in use on an embedded device." The application is currently targeting full scale computers, although one reason for "ideally it would be entirely java based" is a dreamy aspiration of creating an Android version.
Ultimately it really depends on your application. SQLite is not designed to be as robust as standard client\server databases like Oracle and MySQL. From the FAQ for SQLite they say the following on the subject:
However, client/server database engines (such as PostgreSQL, MySQL, or Oracle) usually support a higher level of concurrency and allow multiple processes to be writing to the same database at the same time. This is possible in a client/server database because there is always a single well-controlled server process available to coordinate access. If your application has a need for a lot of concurrency, then you should consider using a client/server database. But experience suggests that most applications need much less concurrency than their designers imagine.
That being said SQLite is very fast but then again this depends on how you'll be using it and on what platforms. If you are running on an embedded device you may see significant performance differences than when running on a regular desktop\server which is why its hard to give a exact answer. SQlite does see significant performance gains from not abiding to the standard client\server model.
Your best bet is to pick a few, like SQLite, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and see the performance implications of each by running some tests which simulate common scenarios you will encounter in you application.
Take a look at http://www.polepos.org/ there is a benchmark which clains thathttp://www.db4o.com/
is one of the fastest embedded dbs.
I personally worked with db4o and its very nice and its licensed under GPL so it should possibly fit your needs
I have an established software product that uses HSQLDB as its internal settings database. Customer projects are stored in this database. Over the years, HSQLDB has served us reasonably well, but it has some stability/corruption issues that we've had to code circles around, and even then, we can't seem to protect ourselves from them completely.
I'm considering changing internal databases. Doing this would be fairly painful from a development perspective, but corrupted databases (and lost data) are not fun to explain to customers.
So my question is: Does anyone have enough experience to weigh in on the long-term stability of Apache Derby? I found a post via Google complaining that Derby was unstable, but it was from 2006 so I'd entertain the idea that it has been improved in the last 4 years. Or, is there another pure Java embedded (in-process) database that I could use (commercial or open-source). Performance isn't very important to me. Stability is king. Data integrity across power loss, good BLOB support, and hot-backups are all a must.
Please don't suggest something that isn't a SQL-based relational database. I'm trying to retrofit an existing product, not start from scratch, thanks.
For each database engine there is a certain risk of corruption. I am the main author of the H2 database, and I also got reports about broken databases. Testing can reduce the probability of bugs, but unfortunately it's almost impossible to guarantee some software is 'bug free'.
As for the three Java database HSQLDB, Apache Derby, and H2, I can't really say which one is the most stable. I can only speak about H2. I think for most operations, H2 is now stable. There are many test cases that specially test for databases getting corrupt. This includes automated tests on power loss (using a christmas light timer). With power failure tests I found out stability also depends on the file system: sometimes I got 'CRC error' messages meaning the operating system can't read the file (it was Windows). In that case, there is not much you can do.
For mission critical data, in any case I wouldn't rely on the software being stable. It's very important to create backups regularly, and test them. Some databases have multiple way to create backups. H2 for example has an online backup feature, and a feature to write a SQL script file. An alternative is to use replication or clustering. H2 supports a simple cluster mode, I believe Derby supports replication.
I ran Derby 24/7 as the internal database supporting a build automation and test management system for 4 years. It was used by a worldwide team, and never crashed, lost data, or corrupted my records. The only reason we stopped using it is because our company was bought by another and a higher-level decision was handed down. Derby is solid, reliable, and well worth your consideration.
This search shows 215 posts in HSQLDB Users mailing list containing the string "corrupt".
http://search.gmane.org/?query=corrupt&author=&group=gmane.comp.java.hsqldb.user&sort=date&DEFAULTOP=and&xP=Zcorrupt&xFILTERS=Gcomp.java.hsqldb.user---A
This search shows 264 posts in Derby Users mailing list containing the same string.
http://search.gmane.org/?query=corrupt&author=&group=gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.user&sort=date&DEFAULTOP=and&xP=Zcorrupt&xFILTERS=Gcomp.apache.db.derby.user---A
This one shows 1003 posts in Derby Dev mailing list with the same string
http://search.gmane.org/?query=corrupt&author=&group=gmane.comp.apache.db.derby.devel&sort=date&DEFAULTOP=and&xP=Zcorrupt&xFILTERS=Gcomp.apache.db.derby.devel---A
A look at some of the posts shows possible or real cases of database corruption happen despite all the best efforts of database developers.
HSQLDB has had its own share of database corruption issues but has improved over the years. In the latest versions precautions and fixes have been introduced to prevent all the issues that were reported in the last few years.
The new lob storage feature however, turned out to have a logic bug that results in the lobs being "forgotten" after an update. This is being fixed right now, with more extensive tests to support the fix.
Users like CarlG have helped a lot over the years in the bug fixing efforts of both Derby and HSQLDB.
Fred Toussi, HSQLDB Project
Does anyone have enough experience to weigh in on the long-term stability of Apache Derby? (...)
Derby, ex IBM Cloudscape (and now also distributed by Sun as JavaDB) is an ACID-compliant database that can stand a lot of concurrent users, running embedded or in server mode, and is know to be robust and production ready. It is not as fast as HSQLDB (Derby uses durable operations), but it's robust. Still, you should run your own tests against it.
See also
François Orsini's blog
I have been using Apache Derby since 2009 in many of my projects, some of them with 24/7 operation and many millions of rows.
Never ever had a single event of data corruption. Rock solid and fast.
I keep choosing it as my RDBMS of choice, unless a good reason not to pops out.
Try looking into H2. It was created by the guy who originally made HSQLDB but built from scratch so doesn't use any HSQLDB code. Not sure how its stability compares to HSQL since I haven't used HSQL in ages and I'm only using H2 for short-lived databases currently. I personally found H2 to be easier to get going than Derby but maybe that's because H2 has a cheat sheet web page.
It might be possible to re-code to use an abstraction layer and then run tests to compare H2 and Derby with the issues you have found.
On the project management side of the fence, does your roadmap have a major version coming up? That might be a rather appropriate time to rip out the guts this way and I wouldn't say you were crazy cause it could potentially remove lots of hard to manage work arounds. If you wanted to make the change where it could affect live systems without plenty of warning and backups in place then you may be crazy.
With regard to HSQLDB, one thing that it doesn't have as a project that SQLite has is the documentation of a robust testing suite and online documentation of assiduous ACID compliance.
I don't mean to take anything away from HSQLDB. It's meant to serve as an alternative to MySQL not to fopen() as SQLite is intended. One can say that the scope of HSQLDB (all the Java RDBMS's really) is much more ambiitious. Fredt and his group have accomplished an extraordinary achievement with HSQLDB. Even so, doing the Google search "Is HSQLDB ACID compliant" doesn't leave an early adopter feeling as confident as one feels after reading about the testing harnesses on the SQLite website.
At http://sqlite.org/transactional.html
"SQLite is Transactional
A transactional database is one in which all changes and queries appear to be Atomic, Consistent, Isolated, and Durable (ACID). SQLite implements serializable transactions that are atomic, consistent, isolated, and durable, even if the transaction is interrupted by a program crash, an operating system crash, or a power failure to the computer.
We here restate and amplify the previous sentence for emphasis: All changes within a single transaction in SQLite either occur completely or not at all, even if the act of writing the change out to the disk is interrupted by
a program crash,
an operating system crash, or
a power failure.
The claim of the previous paragraph is extensively checked in the SQLite regression test suite using a special test harness that simulates the effects on a database file of operating system crashes and power failures."
At http://sqlite.org/testing.html
"1.0 Introduction
The reliability and robustness of SQLite is achieved in part by thorough and careful testing.
As of version 3.7.14, the SQLite library consists of approximately 81.3 KSLOC of C code. (KSLOC means thousands of "Source Lines Of Code" or, in other words, lines of code excluding blank lines and comments.) By comparison, the project has 1124 times as much test code and test scripts - 91421.1 KSLOC.
1.1 Executive Summary
Three independently developed test harnesses
100% branch test coverage in an as-deployed configuration
Millions and millions of test cases
Out-of-memory tests
I/O error tests
Crash and power loss tests
Fuzz tests
Boundary value tests
Disabled optimization tests
Regression tests
Malformed database tests
Extensive use of assert() and run-time checks
Valgrind analysis
Signed-integer overflow checks"
Give SQLite a try if you're looking for something self contained (no server involved). This is what backs android's db api, and is highly stable.