Hello, On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <[email protected]> wrote: > JCR / Jackrabbit itself fits nicely into one of the many definitions of > NoSQL, if you look at the unstructured data part of it. > Using other NoSQL storages as Jackrabbit's internal persistence > implementation (persistence manager or data store) is possible and some > attempts have been made, but it doesn't bring much value, as the interesting > feature set of JCR is implemented on top of that anyway. The only advantage > would be if you already have & use NoSQL storage X and want to consolidate > all data there.
another advantage could be that hbase scales out much further than a plain database. Also, I am not sure if it could be used to remove the single point of congestion of writing to the database in Jackrabbit, although, I have to add I am on thin ice here, as I do not know much about that part of Jackrabbit Another part I would be very interested in, is if NoSQL would exactly be efficient for the use cases Jackrabbit has. I doubt whether fetching many nodes from, say a hbase backed storage, is actually fast enough? Perhaps it is an attempt like storing a single Lucene index on a cluster (like the meant to fail Lucandra attempt): It is a fruitless effort, and will never be comparably fast to having the index locally. Regards Ard > Cheers, > Alex > On 07.08.11 10:57, "Dayo Egbetola" <[email protected]> wrote: >
