JDBC persistence vs non-JDBC persistence?

Apologies for the ignorance, but what is the difference between the JDBC Persistence MySQL persistence and MySQL Persistence add-ons?

I observed some difference in the behaviour. I tried mysql in a first place and moved to jdbc for some “I do not remember what it was” reason.

To be honest, both bindings use jdbc (take a look at mysq.cfg).

The major difference (from my perspective, ‘only’ 'user) is, that mysql binding uses itemnn as table names (where nn is a two-digit-number) and a translation table, where jdbc binding can be configured to use plain-text names.
I never tried to use mysql persistence for more than 99 items, so I don’t know what will happen. For jdbc the number length is configurable (default four digits) as are the data types for each item type, which can be very nice if you want to reuse the data and need a special format.

It will continue with 100, 101 and so on. I have more than 600 items with mysql persistence and it works. However the sorting order of tables is not so nice:

Thank you guys :slight_smile:

I’ve gone and setup JDBC MariaDB persistence :smiley:

Ah, I remember…

Thanks for sorting that out!

Does anyone knows how to set “plain-text names” instead of “item numbering” for jdbc persistance?

Go to jdbc.cfg:

tableUseRealItemNames = true