I don't yet have a proper proposal, but maybe what could be done may be
something similar to what Davide has done with regards to the ordered index
(using a skiplist), that is defining a specific structure of the nodes,
together with a specific implementation, that avoids having to use sortable
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.4 release is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit/oak/1.0.4/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/oak/tags/jackrabbit-oak-1.0.4/
The SHA1 checksum of the
+1
Regards,
Tommaso
2014-08-01 11:45 GMT+02:00 Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com:
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.4 release is available at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/jackrabbit/oak/1.0.4/
The release candidate is a zip archive of the sources in:
Hi,
Sorry, I don't understand. In my view, the queries
select [jcr:path] from [nt:base] where id = '1' and x = '2'
and
select [jcr:path] from [nt:base] where x = '2' and id = '1'
are equivalent (it doesn't matter in which order the conditions were
written). It a certain *index* is
+1
All checks ok
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili
tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Regards,
Tommaso
2014-08-01 11:45 GMT+02:00 Thomas Mueller muel...@adobe.com:
A candidate for the Jackrabbit Oak 1.0.4 release is available at:
There are the utilities in the org.apache.jackrabbit.commons.flat
package, which were built for mapping flat structures to a JCR
hierarchy. See the BTreeManager class for a good starting point.
Michael
On 1.8.14 7:56 , Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has a good idea how
+1 all checks ok
alex
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Chetan Mehrotra chetan.mehro...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1
All checks ok
Chetan Mehrotra
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Tommaso Teofili
tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Regards,
Tommaso
2014-08-01 11:45 GMT+02:00 Thomas
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org wrote:
Does this make sense? Is there anything else to be considered?
You didn't mention whether you expect the queue to be concurrently accessed.
If there is just a single producer and a single consumer, then you
could
Thanks Jukka,
in my case I have several producers and a single consumer, so your second
suggestion should do the trick.
Can you make any comments about the performance of such a solution? I
assume Node#getChildNodeNames() is pretty cheap, what about the addNode,
getNode, removeNode methods?
