On 26/feb/2013, at 11:12, Jukka Zitting wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: >> Large transactions: I think we didn't define this as a strict requirement. > > It's probably not the most important thing for Oak to achieve, but we > did list it as a goal in > http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Goals%20and%20non%20goals%20for%20Jackrabbit%203: > > * Big transactions (> 100k nodes at 1kB each)
I agree it's important, especially for future evaluation of Oak by newcomers these are common metrics. > >> I didn't analyze the results, but could the problem be orderable child >> nodes? > > That may well be, in the benchmark code I don't explicitly specify a > non-orderable node type so it defaults to the orderable > nt:unstructured. since the slowing trend is common, even if different, between the MK implementations maybe it's something also related to data structures holding stuff in memory. In my opinion it'd be good to inspect further in order to catch this sort of things as earliest as possible. Tommaso > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting
