jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Müller <thomas.muel...@day.com>
Subject Re: A generic question about JackRabbit
Date Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:00:53 GMT

You can't say one is better than the other, they are just different.
JCR is more geared towards file systems (which are also hierarchical)
and web content (urls, which are also hierarchical). It's easier to
map this kind of content into the JCR model than to map it to the
relational model. Then, nodes don't have a fixed set of properties.
This better matches to the 'object oriented' world than a relational
model. It also better matches XML / JSON use cases. JCR has some
features that are not / less standardized in the relational world (for
example versioning).

> if you're doing a lot of updates or your set modifications are
> common, you'll typically find the other models faster,

Yes and no. One advantage of the relational model is that it usually
better compresses the data because of normalization. But that only
applies in the small scale. If the data doesn't fit into one system,
other approaches may scale better. That's the reason for Google
BigTable, Hadoop, Cassandra, and so on. It also applies to JCR. The
current Jackrabbit implementation is not yet 'highly scalable' (that
wasn't the goal yet), but the JCR model is. I'm not sure if the
relational model does limit the scalability of SQL databases, but
current relational database implementations just don't scale very


View raw message