From users-return-17035-apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive=jackrabbit.apache.org@jackrabbit.apache.org Mon Feb 14 07:53:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 28419 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2011 07:53:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Feb 2011 07:53:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 91366 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2011 07:53:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 90935 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2011 07:53:32 -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 90927 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2011 07:53:31 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:53:31 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [194.172.26.33] (HELO MX1.aeb.de) (194.172.26.33) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:53:23 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,468,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="6694455" Received: from unknown (HELO S-HQMX7.pmbelz.de) ([10.237.5.7]) by MX1I.pmbelz.de with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2011 08:53:03 +0100 Received: from S-HQMX7.pmbelz.de ([fe80::c4b6:4b67:cd89:2050]) by S-HQMX7.pmbelz.de ([fe80::c4b6:4b67:cd89:2050%15]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:53:03 +0100 From: "Seidel. Robert" To: "users@jackrabbit.apache.org" Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:53:04 +0100 Subject: AW: Are DBA Changes to the Jackrabbit Tables Ok? Thread-Topic: Are DBA Changes to the Jackrabbit Tables Ok? Thread-Index: AcvK5gBwriDsdRGlS8amjHr4V4WchQBNXm7A Message-ID: References: <1297536720734-3303004.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1297536720734-3303004.post@n4.nabble.com> Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 tr= igger and are not used by jackrabbit. 3. This is also ok. Primary keys are unique index constraints in Oracle (bu= t you can only have one at a table). Kindly regards, Robert -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Neil [mailto:ncorbet23@hotmail.com]=20 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 tha= t JCR is not relational and that the Table creation was handled by the repository on startup and when accessing the workspace the first time. Bein= g 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 updat= e 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 =20 --=20 View this message in context: http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/Are-DB= A-Changes-to-the-Jackrabbit-Tables-Ok-tp3303004p3303004.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.