jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcin Nowak <marcin.j.no...@comarch.com>
Subject Re: eXist
Date Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:09:16 GMT
So you suggest that storing data as attributes could be more efficient 
in Jackrabbit? After weekend I'll try to provide some results of the 
same test cases but with another set of XML-s with storing based on 
attributes, I'll also make some comparison charts.

If there are any give me some suggestions how data should be organized 
to fit best in Jackrabbit architecture - what should I avoid, where are 
the limitations/depth, number of subtags on one level, etc./ ?

Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
> On 4/24/07, Marcin Nowak <marcin.j.nowak@comarch.com> wrote:
>> I can't share those files but I can give you some stats:
> Your data set seems to primarily use tags instead of attributes for
> storing content. Jackrabbit nodes are quite a bit "heavier" than DOM
> nodes, which probably explains the difference in performance.
> As a rule of thumb I've sometimes used a rough metric that a
> Jackrabbit node is about an order of magnitude more expensive than a
> DOM node. I think we probably could improve this quite a bit.
> BR,
> Jukka Zitting

View raw message