[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-652?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael Marth updated OAK-652:
------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 0.14
> ItemImpl.checkProtected() is too slow
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-652
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-652
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: jcr
> Reporter: Jukka Zitting
> Labels: performance
> Fix For: 0.14
>
>
> As mentioned in http://markmail.org/message/6jktvy53wqyhxlht, with the
> current node type code the {{ItemImpl.checkProtected()}} call is pretty
> expensive. I profiled simple {{addNode}} and {{setProperty}} calls and got
> the following results (showing relative time spent in each method):
> {code}
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.NodeImpl.addNode
> 61% org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.SessionDelegate.perform
> 39% org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.ItemImpl.checkProtected
> org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.NodeImpl.setProperty
> 100% org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.NodeImpl.internalSetProperty
> 55% org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.ItemImpl.checkProtected
> 45% org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.jcr.SessionDelegate.perform
> {code}
> By keeping explicit track of effective node types and item definitions we
> could probably drive down the cost at least one order of magnitude, but as
> mentioned on oak-dev@ I'd rather avoid the call entirely since the relevant
> constraints are in any case checked during save().
> This issue exists to track either the removal or optimization of the
> checkProtected(), depending on what consensus we reach.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
