On 4/27/07, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's easy to see how, in a large company, there could be thousands of
> employee holding the same position and health plan, and those
> specific nodes ("Secretary" and "Plan A") would have thousand of
> references pointing to them.
> So, given the issue as explained by Marcel that "whenever a
> reference is added that points to a node N the complete set of
> references pointing to N is re-written to the persistence manager",
> it seems that using references to a node that is very "popular" is
> really going to be creating problems in the long term.
Agreed. And I think we will not be able to re-educate everybody with
an RDBMS background before using Jackrabbit so I think Jackrabbit has
to be able to deal with very large quantities of references in a very
efficient way.
I think "re-educate" is not the proper word to use here, there are very
valid reasons for wanting referential integrity. Making a system that
handles the health and pension plans for thousands of employees in a large
organization might require exactly that level of data-security. Saying you
can do the same in (newly made, largely untried) code as a (well-known,
stable, proven) RDMS might not convince everyone, especially when the data
is very important.
So yes, I agree that Jackrabbit should try to make this use-case perform
well but not because of uneducated RDMS programmers but because sometimes a
lot of references are necessary and no amount of redesigning your data
structures will help.
Cheers,
-Tako
