jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thomas Mueller" <thomas.tom.muel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next Generation Persistence
Date Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:32:57 GMT

I am currently thinking about a radical solution (you can call it
brainstorming): Store the index in a database. This would probably be
slower than Lucene, a big disadvantage. Additionally, store data of
all workspaces in the same database, using the same connection. Store
versions in the same database. Use one database connection per
session. Don't use any caching in Jackrabbit (only the database would
cache data). Like this you don't run into problems with transaction
rollbacks, you don't need to clean up the index from time to time. The
Jackrabbit core would get much simpler. The database would not really
need to be a SQL database, but it would need a bit more functionality
than the current PersistenceManager.

Anyway, just an idea.

On 6/18/07, Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reutegger@gmx.net> wrote:
> Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > And after a crash, you can re-index everything, then things are
> > consistent and no data is lost (only time is lost). So solving the
> > transactional problem of the index is not highest priority. Still it
> > would be nice to have a clean solution.
> I agree.
> IMO the index should be held in the workspace together with the
> content. this would require some kind of pre-commit hook that allows the query
> handler to change some additional content (new index segment, etc.).
> regards
>   marcel

View raw message