Which database effective for Java?

Hi
expect Oracle.
I know the Oracle-Java faster.
but except oracle which is the fast?

Thanks for all...

I know the Oracle-Java faster.

How so? Faster than what?

Any database with a JDBC driver is a good choice for work with Java.

Define "effective".

Java-oracle the faster from all other.
Am I right?
I need know which I must use for my web Application which there are 10000 user in user_table
but this users not all active.

MySQL or PostgreSQL? [and cause please]

Vasif Mustafayev wrote:Java-oracle the faster from all other.

As Paul said, without context this statement just does not make sense - so, stated like this, it is wrong. Oracle is definitely not faster than all other databases in all possible usage scenarios. It's likely that the design of the data access layer in your code will have much more impact on performance than the choice of DB.

I need know which I must use for my web Application which there are 10000 user in user_table
but this users not all active.

10000 is a very small number of records when it comes to relational DBs - all of them can handle that easily.

Java-oracle the faster from all other.
Am I right?

"Perhaps" is the only valid answer to this. Basically the question you are asking is too simplistic to answer any more extensively.

The size of data you are suggesting is really quite small, any database should handle this fairly easily.

[Ah Lester - you type too quick!]

Thanks all posts

which one you will used if you was me MySQL or PostgreSQL?

I dislike MySQL for database purist reasons - I find it difficult to accept a relational database that has a database engine which doesn't honour constraints, and for a long time was not transactional. But that's just my personal prejudice. If you need a free database I believe either are fine these days.

Thanks Paul..

Paul Sturrock wrote:I dislike MySQL for database purist reasons

MySQL has for ten years provided the InnoDB storage engine, which supports RI constraints and transactions. In MySQL 5.5, InnoDB is the default storage engine (finally), and over the last few years InnoDB has been improved so it's faster than MyISAM in most cases.

I agree MySQL still has a few WTF moments (whither check constraints? raise error in triggers? recursive CTEs?), but all RDBMS implementations have their own idiosyncrasies.

Agreed, though its not the default storage engine. I'm just amazed MyISAM would do things like validate the syntax of constraints defined in DDL, then not apply those constraints. Daft. And its hard for a novice to realize that this is happening. Idiosyncrasies are one thing, but a database that calls itself relational not performing one of the key functions of relational databases is not good. It has its place, but I've spent too long unpicking corruption in data models to recommend it to others.

But like I say, this is more of a personal prejudice. Choosing to use it with the knowledge of its failings is fine.

I fully agree that MySQL should not parse and silently ignore constraints. It doesn't even generate a warning. I have sent feedback to the MySQL team in the past that this is a terrible bug, but it's too late at this point since changing the behavior would break millions of apps and web sites.

On the other hand, Oracle supports foreign key constraints -- except not cascading updates. Also, an empty string in VARCHAR2 is the same as a null, which makes them incompatible with ANSI/ISO SQL and every other vendor's implementation of SQL. This, they cannot fix? They've been the 2nd largest software company in the world for decades!

That's what I mean when I say every database has its idiosyncrasies.