Community
Participate
Working Groups
It would be nice if you guys could move to a newer (preferably latest version) of the h2 database. In Fedora and RHEL land, we generally ship the latest libraries and it's easier for us to deal with Eclipse when we don't have to patch it to support the latest library. From the looks of it... I see Version 1.3.149 (2011-01-07), Beta Thoughts?
This is old bug, but PDT is not using h2 directly. I'm moving it to DLTK. Besides: 1. H2 in orbit - 1.3.168 2. Latest 1.3.* - 1.3.176 3. Latest 1.4.* - 1.4.178 (beta) - not work with DLTK 5.1
Official H2 release looks to be coming up. I believe after this release it would be worth to think about updating version used by DLTK. Regarding incompatibility problems I think DLTK has only two: * DB setting LARGE_RESULT_BUFFER_SIZE is not longer available * OFFSET is now keyword[1] and sql files needs to be updated I also noticed worse performance with newer version (maybe db settings needs to be tune-up once again). [1] http://www.h2database.com/html/advanced.html#compatibility
(In reply to Michal Niewrzal from comment #2) > Official H2 release looks to be coming up. I believe after this release it > would be worth to think about updating version used by DLTK. > > Regarding incompatibility problems I think DLTK has only two: > * DB setting LARGE_RESULT_BUFFER_SIZE is not longer available > * OFFSET is now keyword[1] and sql files needs to be updated > > I also noticed worse performance with newer version (maybe db settings needs > to be tune-up once again). > > [1] http://www.h2database.com/html/advanced.html#compatibility In 1.4 new default multi-threaded db storage (MVStore) still have performance problems. Try disable it via ;MV_STORE=FALSE
With ;MV_STORE=FALSE works slightly faster but still it's slower than old version. Of course I'm doing only simple tests and maybe I'm missing something else. I think we can back to this topic after official release :)
H2 index implementation has been removed.
