Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 43516 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2008 05:45:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2008 05:45:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 59918 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2008 05:45:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 59908 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2008 05:45:29 -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 59897 invoked by uid 99); 7 Oct 2008 05:45:29 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:45:29 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sridhar.raman@gmail.com designates 209.85.142.185 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.142.185] (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.185) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:44:24 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d27so3862576tid.9 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:44:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=9mcQAbD7iRMg4rEmYLSl45HEmhz/AYRvlJd/QPq/wS8=; b=rBsxiuAHj+IHk5dTlVaFbxUSB8xggWLhovxV+TTM5tnZoM/SzO/8+Wv79dFCWdpJBk D7EP7V+6MidIxleCYVu4X/4oZ0OlW5Umuxl58SYZo77BcNZyUuCcz+rYAyPIPebvedBB 6lmpc84FGWEnWFCDQnvgegx6vA69vu4LLMTqI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=k64Zd5rLweR1dZe1IodvAf9CgX1Jxog0TSEwWMxlJUxNtFCsG9zX51ZdPRlXxAG2aQ B33ssn4jUX2E3Wixb9jjF+09r22FpwqoQVKzA/mEQ2EtHo8UbEKnG7yHNMd1QwYUlUOn mwLVnF8t43plik3hUH5wMGI9p4JloDOEUMZTw= Received: by 10.110.5.14 with SMTP id 14mr7652836tie.58.1223358299101; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.28.14 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 22:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <227621ad0810062244xa1a1049wd1ff1867b37a978@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:14:59 +0530 From: "Sridhar Raman" To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Performance of save operation dependent on size of parent node? In-Reply-To: <48EA2ACC.8080601@subshell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_56502_6322104.1223358299095" References: <227621ad0810060231y2056d3aey872a49f33350259c@mail.gmail.com> <48EA2ACC.8080601@subshell.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_56502_6322104.1223358299095 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Do you move it to a different repository, or a different workspace in the same repository? But just wondering, I actually haven't reached the exact problem as in [1]. Here, each node has just a single version created for it. It's just that there are 20000+ child nodes. Would that also be responsible for deterioration in performance? On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Sven Schliesing wrote: > Please see [1] for a similar problem I had with many versions. > > Our approach to this problem is a second repository where we move all > versions but the 5 newest of a node. > > > Regards, > > Sven > > [1] > http://www.nabble.com/Handling-many-versions%2C-disposing-swapping-out-old-ones-td18154757.html#a18154757 > ------=_Part_56502_6322104.1223358299095--