jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jr3 optional features]
Date Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:33:26 GMT

>>>> node.type.management.orderable.child.nodes.supported = false
>>>
>>> why? in CQ we rely on the ability to have orderable child nodes.
>>
>> The problem is we want to support large child node lists, and for this
>> case keeping them ordered is expensive (possible, but more complex, and
>> will slow down adding/removing child nodes to such nodes by factor 2-3).
>>
>> Currently, small child node lists (less than 2000 child nodes or so) are
>> orderable, but large ones are not.
>
> I understand, but we need it ;-)


Having node.type.management.orderable.child.nodes.supported = false 
might be a bit harsh. But orderable child node lists and large number of 
child nodes are definitely in each other's way. I think we should come 
up with a way to let users choose. So it will be either orderable child 
nodes but then adding too many child nodes wont perform well or it will 
be many child nodes with good performance but not orderable.

Actually there might even be a third option here: many child nodes and 
orderable but scalable only to a limited amount of order operations. 
That is, performance will degrade with the number of order operations 
which have been applied to the list of child nodes.

Michael

Mime
View raw message