Werner Frieb wrote:
One thing you you forgot to test, and hence include in your report, was performance when using non "large" documents.
In writing the XML:DB benchmarks (xmldbench,sourceforge.net)
Performance is not really important to us, so we did not do any benchmarking.
I've noted that using xml documents of about 30K in size, eXist
falls over at anything over and above about 30 000 resources, whereas Xindice 1.0 AND 1.1b happily performs up to about 100 000
documents.
Your test data of 5MB documents would have missed this important note, and I still question the reasoning in having a 5MB xml document anyway - usually this is symptomatic of a design problem. (IMHO)
OTOH, it would be interesting to know what amount of memory was given to the xindice during this test (my bet is that it was default for JVM - 64Mb), and what amount of memory would be enough to pass the test without OOME. But Werner have not gone this far, so we you won't see memory requirements comparison for the databases.
No, I did not change the memory settings of the JVM. Why not make a note in the documentation explaining that ?
Send in a patch! :-)
And no - I don't think it's a design problem having big sized XML documents, it's more the request not to have zillions of mini documents, because this is unhandy, when it comes to import/export data from the database. Furthermore, it does not always make sense to split up a document. In some cases there is even a good reason for avoiding that. Think of a play of Shakespeare for example...
It's not design problem in general, but it is design problem when designing specifically for xindice, due to xindice architecture, which is noted in the FAQ.
Also, I notices that you reference to the old, xindice 1.0, documentation. All documentation which is work in progress and which is relevant to the xindice 1.1 is located under dev/ folder (dev tab in the navigation).
Hope this clears the version mess you had with the documentation.
Yes, this is the first time noticing that there is a separate documentation for the new version of Xinidice.
But I was on the dev page before, so I think this version numbers are quite new.
And the headings of my hardcopy of the documentation read version numbers like 0.7.1 and 0.9.2 and not 1.0 and 1.1...
Documentation for 1.1 was there; but I made changes to docs titles (and updated content a bit: CORBA -> XML-RPC) to clearly show the xindice version it is applicable for.
Version number of the doc currently on the very bottom, and it is obtained from the revision CVS tag.
Vadim
