Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 84774 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2007 08:18:16 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Apr 2007 08:18:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 75546 invoked by uid 500); 24 Apr 2007 08:18:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 75533 invoked by uid 500); 24 Apr 2007 08:18:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 75524 invoked by uid 99); 24 Apr 2007 08:18:21 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:18:21 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.247 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.247] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.247) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:18:14 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so2515782and for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:17:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=NnhPamiXTKAgrxjilwhM0OCPJ/Wy12LEwJuHCm+wRhlDIVVg0mPOo1gcGY6C4KX9rdjD92OSy/olvplrOScYw6j8lcKWooay022hF+VQAIA3ni9wXbltDnb8qW3pkBbHQdkhID+Y8ZI7LUBOzNP2qSEtdexVU4YWdUyyDaI6bRA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=GdUGnU4a6ZxiOEc5eCPK7d5C0hPyCzgKzFCnrFCOnCXVAgiuEAwQ0qH3J3yFJqeaFiew/IwO5Zl4IO6GVC6f/2gSRFBxsnF1yyWXui5dRQP3Zt4wqVHuj1NQ065r4/iS/+WaOaRw2LccYZFfRLkoROhQ34L0XY+Ck9O0Imt4SLo= Received: by 10.100.142.12 with SMTP id p12mr4367608and.1177402672280; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.163.1 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <510143ac0704240117y15406048u1a369cebb0acaeda@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:17:52 +0300 From: "Jukka Zitting" To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: eXist In-Reply-To: <462DA7D2.7070908@comarch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <462C5066.5040501@comarch.com> <462C90A5.1050009@comarch.com> <510143ac0704230523n1c09e2f4wfde1cb5e62d42e6f@mail.gmail.com> <462D9DC5.3090402@comarch.com> <462DA7D2.7070908@comarch.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, On 4/24/07, Marcin Nowak 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