jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Seidel. Robert" <Robert.Sei...@aeb.de>
Subject AW: Are DBA Changes to the Jackrabbit Tables Ok?
Date Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:53:04 GMT
Hi Neil,

1. I don't know about SECUREFILE - if it is a type to store large binary it should be ok...
2. This is ok, cause the additional fields will be only filled by the db trigger and are not
used by jackrabbit.
3. This is also ok. Primary keys are unique index constraints in Oracle (but you can only
have one at a table).

Kindly regards, Robert

-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Neil [mailto:ncorbet23@hotmail.com] 
Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Februar 2011 19:52
An: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Betreff: Are DBA Changes to the Jackrabbit Tables Ok?


Hello all,

       The dba for my company wants to make some changes to the tables that
were created in Oracle for my Jackrabbit app. I tried to explain to him that
JCR is not relational and that the Table creation was handled by the
repository on startup and when accessing the workspace the first time. Being
a DBA he couldn't let it go, so he made the following changes and I would
like to get some feedback on the dangers if any these changes could pose.

      For the {$workspaceName}_BUNDLE and {$workspaceName}_BINVAL tables:
            1. Changed the LOB storage to SECUREFILE type
            2. Added an INSERT_DATE and LAST_MODIFIED fields that are update
by before Insert and Update
                triggers.
            3. Removed Unique Index constraint and created Primary Key on
NODE_ID/BINVAL_ID

      For the DATASTORE table:
            1.   Changed LOB storage to SECUREFILE type.

Thanks,
        Neil

            
-- 
View this message in context: http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/Are-DBA-Changes-to-the-Jackrabbit-Tables-Ok-tp3303004p3303004.html
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Mime
View raw message