jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Storing data in a non-public schema and a postgres persistance manager
Date Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:42:59 GMT
Hi,

On 12/16/06, jdente@21technologies.com <jdente@21technologies.com> wrote:
> First, is there a way to configure Jackrabbit to store data someplace
> other than the default public schema of a database?  The "schema" argument
> in the repository configuration file refers to the type of schema.  The
> only way I can control where data goes in the database is by changing the
> schema object prefix.  It would be nice if I could setup different schemas
> within the same database for different repositories that I have setup for
> testing.

I assume you mean PostgreSQL schemas? Perhaps you could achieve that
by using a repository prefix like "schemaA." (note the dot at the
end).

> I am considering building a PostgresPersistenceManager by extending
> SimpleDBPersistenceManager that will use LargeObjects instead of bytea.
> Has anybody tried using LargeObjects with Jackrabbit instead of bytea?
> Is there a reason this approach won't work?  Why did Jackrabbit use bytea
> to begin with?

Using LargeObjects seems reasonable with PostgreSQL, though I really
consider it a deficiency of PostgreSQL that a custom mechanism is
needed for efficient handling of binary columns.

The database persistence manager was originally written for databases
binary columns can be used efficiently, and using bytea is the easiest
way to make the default implementation work with PostgreSQL. A custom
implementation that uses LargeObjects would certainly be possible, see
for example the OraclePersistenceManager that also uses custom
processing for blob fields.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message