jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From amsmota <amsm...@gmail.com>
Subject Use of diferent or same schemaObjectPrefixes
Date Tue, 06 May 2008 09:56:09 GMT

I notice that if I have different schemaObjectPrefix for 

A) Repository/FileSystem -> 1 table
B) Repository/Workspace/FileSystem -> 1 table
C) Repository/Workspace/PersistenceManager -> 4 tables
D) Repository/Versioning/FileSystem -> 1 table
E) Repository/Versioning/PersistenceManager -> 4 tables

A, B, D -> *fsentry
C, E -> *binval, *node, *prop, *refs

I end up with 11 tables. If I use a common schemaObjectPrefix (or if I use
the schemaObjectPrefix  to configure my schema, see 
http://www.nabble.com/Using-diferent-database-schemas-td16993168.html here )
I only get 5 tables.

Now what I want top know is what was the rationale behind the implementation
of this (optionally) different schemaObjectPrefix's. Is just a question of
housekeeping, to properly identify the different types of repository, to
prevent the tables getting to big? Or is there a more "profound" reason?

I need to know this to go ahead with the use of schemaObjectPrefix to define
my database schema or not.

Thanks all.




-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Use-of-diferent-or-same-schemaObjectPrefixes-tp17079492p17079492.html
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message