Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:04:52 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8ystein_Gr=F8vlen?= <Oystein.Grovlen@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Derby 10.3.1.4 released
In-reply-to: <46CDEA08.3060200@sun.com>
Sender: Oystein.Grovlen@Sun.COM
To: Derby Discussion <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Message-id: <46CE9124.1050103@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
References: <46BCC4A9.7070403@sun.com>
 <9f40b500708171234w385c1e2bw3e600344b1d112da@mail.gmail.com>
 <46CA2C83.7060000@sun.com> <46CA807F.5070407@sun.com>
 <46CDEA08.3060200@sun.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)

Rahul Dwivedi wrote:
> Are there any plans for implementing such a feature where lob locators 
> are stored in tables and LOB are stored some where else, or such similar 
> functionality to enhance performance with multiple lobs in single table.
> 

I do not think that anyone has so far indicated that they have any plans 
for this. However, I would very much like to understand better what you 
are requesting.

If I understand you correctly, your main objective is that if LOBs are 
stored outside the table, a table scan will be much quicker.  Is that 
what you are thinking of?

Others have asked for locators in order to save space if two columns are 
referring the same LOB.  That raises the question of what should happen 
if a LOB is updated (e.g., through JDBC by Blob.setBytes).  Should that 
update be reflected by all columns referring the Blob, or just the 
column being updated.

--
�ystein