jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Felix Meschberger" <Felix.Meschber...@day.com>
Subject Re: atomic vs group node creation/storage
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:57:30 GMT
Hi Frédéric,

So, I misunderstood you and have to admit, that I cannot help any further.
This seems more related to how the MySQL persistence manager handles
constant updates of a shared parent nodes with more and more child nodes.
Also your use of same name sibblings might be an issue, actually.

Generally, I made the experience that same name sibblings cause more pain
than releive in most cases should probably not be used if not required.

Regards
Felix

On 6/20/07, Frédéric Esnault <fesn@legisway.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Felix,
>
> I understand the transient space memory consumption issue, and that's why
> I'm thinking of something like a partial saving mechanism (ie. save the
> nodes every 1,000).
>
> My real issue here is the persistent storage. Saving node by node, like I
> do there,
> is not acceptable for me because, as I said, doing so increases very fast
> the number of rows and the table sizes in mySQL. Doing so inserting 27 000
> nodes one by one gave me a 35 million rows default_node table, more than
> 22GB.
>
> So I'm dealing with a persistent storage issue, here, and that's why I'm
> currently working with "mass creation then save" strategy. But in
> production, users are definitely going to use the "one by one
> creation/saving" strategy, which scares me....
>
> Frédéric Esnault - Ingénieur R&D
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De: fmeschbe@gmail.com [mailto:fmeschbe@gmail.com] De la part de Felix
> Meschberger
> Envoyé: mercredi 20 juin 2007 10:44
> À: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
> Objet: Re: atomic vs group node creation/storage
>
> Hi Frédéric,
>
> Now this makes a whole lot more sense to me :-)
>
> The first algorithm creates a number of nodes and properties in transient
> space, which is currently kept in memory. The higher the number of nodes,
> the higher the memory consumption. The second algorithm just creates a
> single node and its properties in the transient space before saving them
> away and releasing used memory (or at least making it available for GC).
>
> This is currently an issue of the implementation of the transient space.
> Stefan might have more elaborate details. For the time being, you should
> probably go with the "node by node save" algorithm.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> PS: In your initial post you seem to have switched algorithm descriptions
> which caused some confusion :-)
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message