Werner I think your report will be a real contribution to further progress. Great job. Don
----- Original Message ----- From: "Werner Frieb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: Re: Report on XML Databases ready > > > >>One thing you you forgot to test, and hence include in your report, was > >>performance when using non "large" documents. > >>In writing the XML:DB benchmarks (xmldbench,sourceforge.net) > > Performance is not really important to us, so we did not do any benchmarking. > > >>I've noted that using xml documents of about 30K in size, eXist > >>falls over at anything over and above about 30 000 resources, whereas > >>Xindice 1.0 AND 1.1b happily performs up to about 100 000 > >>documents. > >> > >>Your test data of 5MB documents would have missed this important note, > >>and I still question the reasoning in having a 5MB xml document anyway - > >>usually this is symptomatic of a design problem. (IMHO) > > > >OTOH, it would be interesting to know what amount of memory was given to > >the xindice during this test (my bet is that it was default for JVM - > >64Mb), and what amount of memory would be enough to pass the test without > >OOME. But Werner have not gone this far, so we you won't see memory > >requirements comparison for the databases. > > No, I did not change the memory settings of the JVM. > Why not make a note in the documentation explaining that ? > > And no - I don't think it's a design problem having big sized XML > documents, it's more the request not to have zillions of mini documents, > because this is unhandy, when it comes to import/export data from the > database. Furthermore, it does not always make sense to split up a > document. In some cases there is even a good reason for avoiding that. > Think of a play of Shakespeare for example... > > >Also, I notices that you reference to the old, xindice 1.0, documentation. > >All documentation which is work in progress and which is relevant to the > >xindice 1.1 is located under dev/ folder (dev tab in the navigation). > > > >Hope this clears the version mess you had with the documentation. > > Yes, this is the first time noticing that there is a separate documentation > for the new version of Xinidice. > But I was on the dev page before, so I think this version numbers are quite > new. > And the headings of my hardcopy of the documentation read version numbers > like 0.7.1 and 0.9.2 and not 1.0 and 1.1... > > Werner.
