Hi,
On 11/15/06, Stefan Guggisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/15/06, Miro Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue with the SimpleDBPM is that it stores all data as name-value
> pairs in the DB, which can be low-performance (writing a single node
> can require numerous insert statements). There are other approaches
i don't know what you mean by name-value pairs, however a node is persisted
using *one* insert/update statement.
He's referring to the fact that properties are stored in separate
records. Thus, if you save a node with 10 properties, you end up with
11 database records. CRX and some other proprietary persistence
managers save the whole node in a single record, achieving a major
performance boost for some use cases.
> using DDL to dynamically generate tables in the DB that conform to
> nodetypes (so an entire node can be written with a single insert), but
i am still waiting for the proof that a normalized or node type-reflecting
schema would be superior in terms of performance. i'd also be interested
to learn how residual child nodes/properties (e.g. nt:unstructered), non-typed
properties and multi-valued properties would be handled.
There's definitely still a lot of uncharted territory in finding the
optimal persistence models for JCR content trees. For example I'd be
very interested in experimenting with a direct binary persistence
model, which could potentially offer major performance gains. I'm also
convinced that the current PersistenceManager interface is not optimal
from a performance point of view. I'll get back to these on the dev
list when I have some concrete suggestions.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
