jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nicolas " <nto...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Database PersistenceManagers (was "Results of a JR Oracle test that we conducted)
Date Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:31:52 GMT
Hi,

On 3/12/07, Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reutegger@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> > ACK, the key is the write lock on SharedItemStateManager. In fact, do
> > we even need the database persistence managers to be transactional
> > over multiple method calls?
>
> I can't follow you here. what exactly do you mean by weakening transaction
> requirements on the persistence manager? e.g. reading of uncommitted
> items?
>

I think Jukka means the underlying DB already ensures transactional
capability, therefore DatabasePersistenceManager could still be
transactional without a write lock on JR's side.

It seems achievable but I wonder if the performance gain is noticeable or
make things worse (we would use instead different PreparedStatement for
instance).

IMO it seems we don't really know where the bottlenecks are. By this, I mean
no cold hard facts.

BR,
Nico
my blog! http://www.deviant-abstraction.net !!

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