Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mreutegg@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.31 as permitted sender)
From: Marcel Reutegger <mreutegg@adobe.com>
To: "users@jackrabbit.apache.org" <users@jackrabbit.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:09:23 +0100
Subject: RE: Write performance problems
Thread-Topic: Write performance problems
Thread-Index: Ac5yleqVq4OKQ4d+RciHDmmHx2S33wAZrf7w
Message-ID: 
 <9C0FC4C8E9C29945B01766FC7F9D3898189DB39AE0@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
References: <7628B7424DEF784CA2ECB07668F69CF4BE3552F8@S-HQMX9.pmbelz.de>
In-Reply-To: <7628B7424DEF784CA2ECB07668F69CF4BE3552F8@S-HQMX9.pmbelz.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi,

> Most of my nodes exist in just one version (about 90%), but because some =
of
> them are versioned, I need the versionable nodetype. But for all the othe=
rs a
> version history is created, consuming database space and write performanc=
e.
> Why can't the version history not be created if a node is checked in?

this is mandated by the JCR specification. as soon as a node is versionable
the repository has to create a version history for the node.

> This would save space and time, if a node is versionable but not actually
> versioned. Or is there a solution for a situation like this?

yes, there is. instead of baking the versionable node type directly into
your node type hierarchy you can assign mix:versionable on demand. IIUC
most of your nodes wouldn't be versionable initially, but only assigned
the mix:versionable when you need to do a first checkin.

regards
 marcel