John Merrells wrote:
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
>> >4. TRANSACTION >
> Surely it's not in my personal top list. I think that XML databases > are closer to the LDAP model than to RDBMS: most of the time the > operations are pure reads, not writes. Yet, if it doesn't cost too > much, it might be worth considering.
I find that statement curious. The ratio of reads to writes doesn't really have any bearing on the need for transactions.... If your user wants their data to be durable they need a transacted store.
Nice to see you here, John. :-)
Af fo transaction, sorry, let me rephrase it better, I didn't make myself clear: if you want ACID then you need transactions for operations that modify the database. But on a mostly-read database the transaction code might well be slow, since you are not doing many writes. So, even if JTA might impose a performance penalty, if the model is mostly read then it might be worth using that in the immediate future. Does this sound better?
BTW, John, do you know if Sleepycat made a final resolution about what will be the bdxml license? I.e.: will we be able to use bdbxml as a backend for Xindice like Mysql does with Berkeley DB? This is one of the paths I'm currently exploring, but I might well be wasting my time here if the license doesn't allow us to use it.
TIA,
-- Gianugo Rabellino
