Oracle Unveils New Open Source BerkeleyDB Release

Mark Brunelli writes to tell us that Oracle has released the newest version of the open source Oracle BerkeleyDB Java Edition. From the article: "The new release of the Java embeddable database is the third to come out in three years and the first new version to come out of Sleepycat Software since Oracle purchased the open source stalwart back in February. Rex Wang, Oracle's vice president of embedded systems and a former vice president of marketing at Sleepycat, said the latest release lets Java developers take advantage of a new Persistence application programming interface (API) that provides greater flexibility and new performance optimizations that enable applications to run faster."

Comments

Many using SQLite instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that many developers, especially on embedded or hand-held systems, are starting to use SQLite these days instead of BDB. SQLite is small enough, and efficient enough, to be used suitably in such environments. It offers SQL support, which BDB does not. And its library-based architecture is a real plus in such environments. The fact that it's public domain makes it even more appealing.

SQLite is even starting to take over from MySQL for many smaller websites. The overhead (both in terms of system resources and administration) can't be justified when using a server-based system, especially when SQLite does the job just fine.

What we may even see is MySQL squeezed out of the market. I know many database developers who are starting to use PostgreSQL for their higher-end databases, and SQLite for the lower-end. MySQL could be considered the best contender for mid-range DBs, but SQLite and PostgreSQL keep converging, thus pushing MySQL out to a point of irrelevance. Of course, there has been a decade and more of development using MySQL, so for legacy reasons alone it will continue to be used for ages.

Re:Many using SQLite instead.

[AKAImBatman]

I know that many developers, especially on embedded or hand-held systems, are starting to use SQLite these days instead of BDB. SQLite is small enough, and efficient enough, to be used suitably in such environments. It offers SQL support, which BDB does not.

You're missing the point. Putting aside for the moment that we're discussing the Java version of BDB (which would be useless on the types of embedded platforms you're talking about), BDB is a basic database engine. Which means it's the type of software you can use to build a database management system on top of rather than being a DBMS in its own right. SQLite and HSQL are complete DBMS packages that will only meet your needs if an SQL engine is what you want.

For example, if you're looking to build an Object Storage Database, SQLite and HSQL would both be terrible choices. But BDB would fit the bill perfectly.

Re:Many using SQLite instead.

[ralph alpha]

Berkeley DB and SQLite don't even come close to filling the same niches. Berkeley DB is a highly optimized, generic, low-level tree-based database that can be used for a variety of purposes -- including providing the backing store for an SQL system. SQLite is an embeddable SQL parser wand extremely simplistic backing store. Berkeley DB is like a body without a head. SQLite is like a head without a body (or at least not much of one). You might want to note that "database" does not imply "SQL."

Re:Many using SQLite instead.

[hey!]

I think you hit the nail on the had here.

If you are a database person, as opposed to a programmer who needs some kind of persistent store, database implies the prsence of certain abstractions that BDB doesn't have. It's the abstractions that matter, because they implement a kind of data reusability. This is a big aspect of databases that programmers don't always appreciate, but if you remmber the early adoption days of the relational model (as I do), the idea of abstracting data from its application was a big thing. We had methods already after all for managing storage: hash tables, b trees, record pointers. We even had models (the hierarchical model). But relational databases allow you to create a model of your data that is abstracted from what you are doing with it.

I'd go so far as to say that absracting data for reusability is what distinguishes a true database from other kinds of collections of data. Of course people do use words in a vague way, but this property definitely separates out what is unquestionably a datbase from what is only arguably a database.

There is no question of BDB being a database management system. Collections of data in BDB format might arguably be databases depending on the effort the programmer went through, but usually they're just indexed files.

Things like SQLLite that implement a generaly query and data manipulation language (e.g. including but not limited to SQL) is clearly a database management system, although it may not be a very good one.

Re:Rex Wang?

[Bootvis]

He is King Cock.

Sweet!

[AKAImBatman]

I'll have to see if they've finally added support for partial record retrivals. It used to be that this feature was only in the native code edition of BDB. It ended up being a showstopper for the Java version last time I tried to use it.

Re:Sweet!

[greybird]

Hello, this is Mark Hayes, I'm one of the BDB Java Edition developers.

There are no restrictions on accessing partial records in BDB Java Edition -- it is the same as the BDB C Edition in this respect. However, you may have a misunderstanding about the way partial records work in both products: neither product has a BLOB capability.

In both products, when you do a partial get/put of a record, the entire record must be loaded into the BDB cache. The only advantage of a partial get/put is that it reduces the amount of memory copied between the BDB cache and your buffer. If you need the performance of a true BLOB implementation for very large records, I'm afraid you won't get it by using either BDB product.

We do get requests for a true BLOB capability from time to time. We have not implemented it yet, because it will take significant effort to implement it in a way that performs well for very large records. And the number of requests have not yet been high enough to outweigh other requested features.

Please keep the requests for this capability coming in if you need it. We do factor in these requests when we do product planning.

Thanks,
Mark

Re:"high-performance" Java?

[JebusIsLord]

oh for chrissakes don't turn this into a "java is slow" argument. 1996 called, and they want their discussion back.

-1, Wrong

[Jerk City Troll]

Java classes get compiled to native code with machine-specific optimizations at runtime. If you had done any research on the subject, you would find that Java out-performs other languages at times. Java is fast. This argument is over, so please can it.