Thank you very much for information! I prepared XML example (at the end)
illustrating the hierarchy of objects and added comments with orders of
counts of objects.
MyObjects and Sub-Objects within MyObject can have different types -
different set of properties. Sub-sub-objects have the same type within
sub-objects.
1) "MyObject"s will be searched by simple queries with "header" but also may
be by fields from nested sub-objects.
2) Sub-objects and Sub-sub-objects can have attachments.
3) Sub-objects will be retrieved with filtered collection of
sub-sub-objects.
Do you find such hierarchy productive ? Or better to use usual relational
database?
<RootNode>
<OrgPath...Path>
<MyObjects>
<!-- MyObject x 100 000 - 1 000 000 - can be archieved -->
<MyObject>
<Header Attr1="" Attr2="" Attr3="" />
<Collection>
<!-- SubObject x 10 -->
<SubObject AttachmentsCanBeHere="">
<Header Attr1="" Attr2="" Attr3="" />
<Collection>
<!-- SubSubObject x 20 -->
<SubSubObject AttachmentsCanBeHere=""></SubSubObject>
</Collection>
</SubObject>
</Collection>
</MyObject>
</MyObjects>
</OrgPath...Path>
</RootNode>
2008/8/8 Ard Schrijvers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Is it possible
> > > to run JackRabbit on Oracle to guarantee good perfomance and
> > > reliability on 10-100 mio records?
>
> > Marcel Reutegger wrote:
> > I've seen jackrabbit work well with about 10 million nodes.
> > does anyone else have experience with larger repositories?
>
> IMO the relation between number of nodes and good performance is highly
> correlated to *how* you want to access these nodes and *how* the
> structure of these X mio nodes are (ie, not > 1000 direct childs per
> node). If you want to access nodes by simple getNodes() and 'easy'
> queries, I saw numbers of > 100 mio nodes on this list. If, though, you
> also want very complex CPU intensive searches (like searches with
> initial path constraints or many wildcard queries) you might hit a limit
> much earlier.
>
> -Ard
>
> >
> > regards
> > marcel
> >
>
