[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-642?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12737163#action_12737163
]
Lars Trieloff commented on JCR-642:
-----------------------------------
>> I think that limiting children to 100k nodes is artificial.
I did not say that - because I know that this limitation is organic.
> The good thing about that limitation is that it forces you to think about a
> good content model, ie. one that is also browsable by a human.
> Nevertheless in some cases it might be good if Jackrabbit would scale better
> with flat hierarchies.
Yes, especially if there are aspects about your content model that are outside
your control and introducing a fake hierarchy only makes things more
complicated at an application level.
As far as I can see, the other source of NodeStates is in the ItemStateManager,
which is being created by the RepositoryImpl with a reference to the
PersistenceManager, so that there are no API breaks necessary.
Making a lazy list writable is certainly hard, but not impossible. In the end
following things can happen:
- a node is being removed - this node has to be fetched before it can be removed
- a node is being added at the end of the list - easy
- a node is being added relative to another node - this other node has to be
fetched beforehand
> Support flat content hierarchies
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: JCR-642
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-642
> Project: Jackrabbit Content Repository
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jackrabbit-core
> Reporter: Jukka Zitting
>
> The current best practice with Jackrabbit is to avoid flat content structures
> due to performance concerns.
> These concerns are caused by the fact that the NodeState implementation
> requires the list of child node names and identifiers to be available at all
> times. In fact many (all?) current persistence managers implement this
> requirement by storing and loading this list as a part of the serialized node
> state. When this list grows, the performance and memory overhead of managing
> the list grows as well. As a side note, this also creates potential
> consistency issues since the parent/child links are stored both within the
> child list of the parent node and as the parent link of the child node.
> To solve this issue, I believe we need to break the tight bonding between the
> node state and the list of child nodes. This will likely require major
> refactoring of the Jackrabbit core, including breaking the NodeState and
> PersistenceManager interfaces, so I don't expect a solution in near future.
> However, we should start thinking about how to best do this, and at least be
> concerned about building in any more assumptions about the list of child
> nodes always being readily available.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
