Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.188 as permitted sender)
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=JupP/E7pi8MOMuBxaJnzlZ4zJVmrxY9RfeFpHSmENZ8t2hssd4S+O5gPx+tuwlzBDqRCWvdH8tbKBRjF8QfBwqs/InWqLOPp/77pGWbUKlDbJjaZoCjO9an0QhWsM/ya11jStB+Qt43vhhNv3tOGcLhj+tnUonwRso1RRvTdfs4=
Message-ID: <90a8d1c00708100507g353861a5hf2248654d14b7e49@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:07:18 +0200
From: "Stefan Guggisberg" <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com>
To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: JackRabbit Relationships and Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <12088475.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <12087895.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <90a8d1c00708100225x46b3ebferaaae5a5510a1f13d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <12088214.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <90a8d1c00708100242q3a6f7e97v2220b4e67edff616@mail.gmail.com>
	 <12088475.post@talk.nabble.com>

On 8/10/07, woolly <p.barr@lbs-ltd.com> wrote:
>
> Mine's got 14 tables...?

you mentioned that you used 'an Oracle instance for it to use
as the filesystem'.

OracleFileSystem uses 1 table, i.e. [prefix]FSENTRY.

cheers
stefan

>
> DEFAULTFSENTRY
> DEFAULT_BINVAL
> DEFAULT_NODE
> DEFAULT_PROP
> DEFAULT_REFS
> GLOBALFSENTRY
> INDEXFSENTRY
> JCRFSENTRY
> VERSIONFSENTRY
> VERSION_BINVAL
> VERSION_NODE
> VERSION_PROP
> VERSION_REFS
> WSPFSENTRY
>
> surely some of these relate to each other...?! Is there any documentation
> stating how this schema was devised, perhaps?
>
>
> Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
> >
> > On 8/10/07, woolly <p.barr@lbs-ltd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> i thought that databases optimised lookups based on the defined
> >> relationships. is this not the case?
> >>
> >> also, what about data integrity? are we relying on JackRabbit to manage
> >> that
> >> for us? but if so, surely it would want some help from the db?
> >>
> >> it just seems to be a very "strange" schema.....
> >
> > aha? i would agree that it is a very simple schema, it contains just
> > one table, i.e. FS_ENTRY ;-).
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
> >> >
> >> > hi phil
> >> >
> >> > On 8/10/07, woolly <p.barr@lbs-ltd.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> Having set up JackRabbit and pointed it at an Oracle instance for it
> >> to
> >> >> use
> >> >> as the filesystem, i've looked at the schema and it appears that there
> >> >> are
> >> >> no relationships between any of the tables.
> >> >>
> >> >> Surely this is inefficient? Won't there be a performance hit for this?
> >> >
> >> > why?
> >> >
> >> > cheers
> >> > stefan
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Phil.
> >> >> --
> >> >> View this message in context:
> >> >>
> >> http://www.nabble.com/JackRabbit-Relationships-and-Efficiency-tf4247534.html#a12087895
> >> >> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >> http://www.nabble.com/JackRabbit-Relationships-and-Efficiency-tf4247534.html#a12088214
> >> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JackRabbit-Relationships-and-Efficiency-tf4247534.html#a12088475
> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>