Hi Frédéric, So, I misunderstood you and have to admit, that I cannot help any further. This seems more related to how the MySQL persistence manager handles constant updates of a shared parent nodes with more and more child nodes. Also your use of same name sibblings might be an issue, actually.
Generally, I made the experience that same name sibblings cause more pain than releive in most cases should probably not be used if not required. Regards Felix On 6/20/07, Frédéric Esnault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Felix, I understand the transient space memory consumption issue, and that's why I'm thinking of something like a partial saving mechanism (ie. save the nodes every 1,000). My real issue here is the persistent storage. Saving node by node, like I do there, is not acceptable for me because, as I said, doing so increases very fast the number of rows and the table sizes in mySQL. Doing so inserting 27 000 nodes one by one gave me a 35 million rows default_node table, more than 22GB. So I'm dealing with a persistent storage issue, here, and that's why I'm currently working with "mass creation then save" strategy. But in production, users are definitely going to use the "one by one creation/saving" strategy, which scares me.... Frédéric Esnault - Ingénieur R&D -----Message d'origine----- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Felix Meschberger Envoyé: mercredi 20 juin 2007 10:44 À: [email protected] Objet: Re: atomic vs group node creation/storage Hi Frédéric, Now this makes a whole lot more sense to me :-) The first algorithm creates a number of nodes and properties in transient space, which is currently kept in memory. The higher the number of nodes, the higher the memory consumption. The second algorithm just creates a single node and its properties in the transient space before saving them away and releasing used memory (or at least making it available for GC). This is currently an issue of the implementation of the transient space. Stefan might have more elaborate details. For the time being, you should probably go with the "node by node save" algorithm. Hope this helps. Regards Felix PS: In your initial post you seem to have switched algorithm descriptions which caused some confusion :-)
