Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 29706 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2010 21:31:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 1 Mar 2010 21:31:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 2670 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2010 21:31:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 2651 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2010 21:31:37 -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 2642 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2010 21:31:37 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:31:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of aklimets@day.com designates 207.126.148.89 as permitted sender) Received: from [207.126.148.89] (HELO eu3sys201aog103.obsmtp.com) (207.126.148.89) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:31:28 +0000 Received: from source ([209.85.220.216]) by eu3sys201aob103.postini.com ([207.126.154.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKS4wyG4q8WwqAxLZFfgUXfa5m7rLRAHHc@postini.com; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:31:08 UTC Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so2692268fxm.11 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:31:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.2.198 with SMTP id 6mr3402486fak.100.1267479066797; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:31:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <8ea1ff9e1003011031i71527587qd8a5e327292ad2b0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:31:06 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Recursive child versioning From: Alexander Klimetschek To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 22:28, Alexander Klimetschek wrote: > Also it is optimized for trees > with fine-granular content (eg. a page in a CMS), not for arbitrary > sized subfolders with lots of binary content. Ah, forgot: have you tried your scenario with a FileDataStore? Using a datastore avoids duplicate binaries in the storage, so there should only be some overhead in hashing the files upon versioning. Not sure, it might be that the versioning implementation internally temporarily copies the files, which might be slow. Regards, Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek alexander.klimetschek@day.com