Re: Jackrabbit - storage documents ( file system / Mysql)

[Francisco Carriedo Scher <fc...@gmail.com>]

Hi there,

i think that it depends on the size of the files you are going to store (no
idea about large number of files). If your files are under the 1MB size use
MySQL as it performs well within that range.

Use a filesystem otherwise.

This is just my perception, any other opinions?

Regards.

2012/3/15 khelifa senoussi Elhadj <ek...@karavel.com>

> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to decide what type of storage for my project wherein I upload
> and download several files/documents (pdf, doc, ...) using
> Apache.Jackrabbit.
> Please can you tell me which kind of store can I use to avoid performance
> problems:
> 1- File system
> 2- Mysql
>
>
> Cordially,
> Elhadj
>
>
>
>

Re: Jackrabbit - storage documents ( file system / Mysql)

[Alexander Klimetschek <ak...@adobe.com>]

Is the original question about the DataStore (for binaries/files) or generally about the persistence manager?

For (larger) binaries the file system based datastore will be a lot more efficient than databases, as relational DBs are usually not made for binaries and the overhead they introduce does not give any benefit for binaries, since you can't query for them (Jackrabbit has a separate full text search index).

For the persistence manager, which also stores all the fine granular data such as small properties, this is very different. The only simple file-system based PM was the XMLPersistenceManager, which is very, very inefficient. The Bundle DB PMs are the most efficient ones in Jackrabbit (but note that they also don't use much of the DB queries, they only ask for node bundles based on the node's UUID as primary key, that's all).

Cheers,
Alex

On 16.03.2012, at 00:19, Mark Herman wrote:

> Agreed, in general it is accepted that the filesystem is going to be faster.
> Be aware of premature optimization though. There may be features given by
> the overhead of a DB that you'd want, but give it up for a difference that
> the users will never notice.
> 
> Also, make sure you avoid high number of children under one node if
> performance is important.  They recommend less than 10k per node, but I'd
> structure it so you're never even close to that limit.
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/Jackrabbit-storage-documents-file-system-Mysql-tp4474715p4476719.html
> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
Alexander Klimetschek
Developer // Adobe (Day) // Berlin - Basel

Re: Jackrabbit - storage documents ( file system / Mysql)

[Mark Herman <MH...@NBME.org>]

Agreed, in general it is accepted that the filesystem is going to be faster.
Be aware of premature optimization though. There may be features given by
the overhead of a DB that you'd want, but give it up for a difference that
the users will never notice.

Also, make sure you avoid high number of children under one node if
performance is important.  They recommend less than 10k per node, but I'd
structure it so you're never even close to that limit.

--
View this message in context: http://jackrabbit.510166.n4.nabble.com/Jackrabbit-storage-documents-file-system-Mysql-tp4474715p4476719.html
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.