Mine's got 14 tables...? DEFAULTFSENTRY DEFAULT_BINVAL DEFAULT_NODE DEFAULT_PROP DEFAULT_REFS GLOBALFSENTRY INDEXFSENTRY JCRFSENTRY VERSIONFSENTRY VERSION_BINVAL VERSION_NODE VERSION_PROP VERSION_REFS WSPFSENTRY
surely some of these relate to each other...?! Is there any documentation stating how this schema was devised, perhaps? Stefan Guggisberg wrote: > > On 8/10/07, woolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> i thought that databases optimised lookups based on the defined >> relationships. is this not the case? >> >> also, what about data integrity? are we relying on JackRabbit to manage >> that >> for us? but if so, surely it would want some help from the db? >> >> it just seems to be a very "strange" schema..... > > aha? i would agree that it is a very simple schema, it contains just > one table, i.e. FS_ENTRY ;-). > >> >> >> >> Stefan Guggisberg wrote: >> > >> > hi phil >> > >> > On 8/10/07, woolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Having set up JackRabbit and pointed it at an Oracle instance for it >> to >> >> use >> >> as the filesystem, i've looked at the schema and it appears that there >> >> are >> >> no relationships between any of the tables. >> >> >> >> Surely this is inefficient? Won't there be a performance hit for this? >> > >> > why? >> > >> > cheers >> > stefan >> > >> >> >> >> Phil. >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/JackRabbit-Relationships-and-Efficiency-tf4247534.html#a12087895 >> >> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/JackRabbit-Relationships-and-Efficiency-tf4247534.html#a12088214 >> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JackRabbit-Relationships-and-Efficiency-tf4247534.html#a12088475 Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
