I understand this 'synthetic' hierarchy is due to jackrabbit problem with 5-10k direct children, is that not so? Would this problem be solved in next versions (2.1? 3.0?) or will it always be so?
Omid On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Justin Edelson <[email protected]> wrote: > If content has a natural hierarchy, that would always be preferred to a > synthetic hierarchy like the md5 hash. Frequently, the creation date is > a good basis for a natural hierarchy. In a photo gallery, you could also > think of "albums" as being the hierarchy. > > Justin > > > > On 4/24/10 9:35 PM, Christopher M. Logan wrote: >> I subscribe to the jackrabbit mailing list and this response made me think.. >> Why?? Using a check sum to build a folder structure.?. Shouldn't the folder >> structure be understandable... If that is recommended... I really must have >> missed the purpose of jcr... >> ------Original Message------ >> From: Matt Meola >> To: [email protected] >> ReplyTo: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: novice question - photo gallery >> Sent: Apr 24, 2010 6:21 PM >> >> Michael Yin wrote: >>> I believe that a fairly flat structure is not the most efficient for >>> jackrabbit. Maybe use dates (month/year) or some other grouping to further >>> build the tree? >>> >>> -mike >>> >> Indeed, just about all the advice out there is "go deep" instead of "go >> wide". One possible way to do that would be to calculate, say, and MD5 >> checksum from the file (its name, or its contents, whatever), and take >> the pairs of digits and make each of those pairs a folder. >> >> Example: an image named "blub", gives an md5 hash of >> 455523d86a8a1ab7c7d33208fe0219e7, which would yield a folder structure of >> >> data/pictures/gallery/45/55/23/d8/6a/8a/1a/b7/c7/d3/32/08/fe/02/19/e7/original >> >> data/pictures/gallery/45/55/23/d8/6a/8a/1a/b7/c7/d3/32/08/fe/02/19/e7/1024x768 >> >> data/pictures/gallery/45/55/23/d8/6a/8a/1a/b7/c7/d3/32/08/fe/02/19/e7/64x64 >> ... >> >> You could take them in groups of three, or four, or you could only go so >> far with it (not using the entire checksum) -- whatever you like. >> Regardless, you ought to be able to get a reasonably balanced tree over >> time. >> >> Just my two cents... >> >> > >
