jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jr3] Orderable child nodes: required (to be the default)?
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:40:37 GMT
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Thomas Mueller <mueller@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The current Jackrabbit implementation uses orderable child nodes by default,
> meaning nodes are returned in the same order as they are created. As an
> example, if I create the nodes /test/c, then /test/b, and then /test/a, and
> then read the node list, I will get them back in that same order. I'm
> wondering if this is really required (at all, and to be the default
> behavior). Specially if there are a lot of child nodes.
>
> Instead of using the insertion order, I propose to sort the child node list
> alphabetically: /test/a, /test/b, /test/c - no matter in what order the
> nodes where created. This will allow an efficient lookup (using binary
> search), and for large child node lists (more than one thousand child nodes
> per node) modifications would be about twice as fast as using insertion
> order (plus it would need less disk space).
>
> Would it be a problem if Jackrabbit 3 sorts child nodes by name (always, or
> at least by default)?

i guess no. unless that this behavior is expected/mandated.

>
> Another option would be to use (insertion) order until the child node list
> gets too large (for example 1000 elements), and from then on sort the child
> nodes by name (the previous ordering would then be lost).

i am currently working on a similar approach in the microkernel prototype
(sandbox). i am thinking about switching from 'insertion ordered' to
'unordered' (the order depends on the implementation, in my case it's
based on the hashcode of the child node name) once a certain threshold
is reached.

cheers
stefan
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>

Mime
View raw message