Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > > the more i look into the model, though, the more i wonder whether
> > > achieving good performance won't require changes
> > It likely will. There is a change I want to make, which is to move the
> > message data (the blog) to a separate table.
> i don't understand why the message data has to be stored in the
> database.
Amongst other things, it facilitates clustering.
> ATM full message retrieval and storage is slow, and requires
> that the whole document is loaded into memory.
That's a JavaMail issue, and needs to be eliminated. Regardless of whether
the message is in the DB or a file, we want to stream it if we are
processing it at all. This is orthogonal for having the blob be in a
separate table. The latter allows us improved DB performance (and sharing
of the blob, if that were ever useful).
> AIUI JAMES supports basic message data operations for a variety of
> backends. IMHO it would be a more elegant design to split the message
> meta-data from the message data. the message data could then be stored
> in any existing JAMES backend.
We do separate most meta-data from the data. The split isn't as clean as I
would like, but it is present.
> > I can't think of any good reason to use Torque or any other O/R mapper,
> > other than that they were used for expedience. Let's ditch it for
proper
> > SQL statements, and optimize access.
> i don't think that moving away from torque is worth the effort ATM.
> it's possible to hand-patch problems areas.
OK. For now. :-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
