Hi :)
Could that community be prevailed upon to join TDF and manage the Base part of
the project? Presumably they have knowledge of key players and have a good idea
of what needs to be done to improve Base?
Regards from
Tom :)
________________________________
From: Andreas Säger <villeroy@t-online.de>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 11:30:16
Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow
Am 28.07.2011 08:30, Tom Cloyd wrote:
As an aside, have you thoughts to share about HSQLDB vs H2? Any good
reason to migrate to H2 (a question entirely separate from the db speed
question). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you have time to
share them.
The tiny user community of the Base component gathers on
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/index.php and
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewforum.phtml?f=10.
Have a walk through
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=83 and
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=100.
Read contributions by most valued member "DACM". He knows "everything" about
embedded HSQLDB, why not to use it, how to transform it to something useful.
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=94068 [How to: Migrate Base
Projects to Multi-User]
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=97522 [Replace HSQLDB with H2
embedded multi-user]
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=17567&p=162653#p162653
[[Tutorial] Avoid data loss by avoiding "Embedded databases"]
Both database engines are just great, even for people who do not intend to write
their own Java application around these animals.
For my last tiny project I prefered HSQLDB v2 simply because I already had
working drafts in embedded HSQLDB v1.8.
I tried H2 when HSQLDB v2 was not released and I had to do some analysis work on
half a million interrelated records from 2 databases. The single-user local DB
simply worked out of the box, just like HSQLDB 1.8 did with less features. I
copied dBase and csv data into the prepared database structure, added queries,
some macros and dumped the final aggregations in Calc's pivot tables.
Replacing one excellent database backend with another excellent database backend
makes no sense. The "database in a single zip archive" (the so called "Base
document") is the major trouble maker which makes up a slow, inflexible, unsafe,
insecure caricature of a database while the advantage is close to zero.
-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
- Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Base record access unacceptably slow (continued)
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.