On 3/13/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
i can understand why some people may want to store message data in a database
what i cannot understand is why JAMES insists that it *has* to be
stored in a database
> 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.
reads typically require no processing, just pushing the data out a
socket. i wonder whether a messaging solution would be better: allow
processors to access a JavaMail view of the message data but create
this lazily. if there is no processing required, the data is read
lazily to be written out.
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).
AFACT message_body contains the body as a blob (but performance is still poor)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
