| [CDO] scalability of to-many references [message #500670] |
Fri, 27 November 2009 07:37  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi,
I am currently doing some scalability tests and the current way that to-many
references are mapped to the database won't scale to large numbers of
objects contained in the to-many reference.
This is due to the fact that when auditing is used (mandatory for my
application) every time one ore more object references are added to the
to-many reference the whole list of object references (with a new CDO
version) is added to the table containing the to-many references. So if the
to-many reference contains one million object references and you add
another one then one million and one rows need to be inserted to the
database.
I propose a modified mapping that keeps auditibility without having to
replicate all the old object references.
As to-many references basically have tow operations (add and object and
remove an object) I propose to split the 'cdo_version' column into
two: 'cdo_version_added' and 'cdo_version_removed'.
If a new object gets added to the to-many reference, then
it's 'cdo_version_added' gets set. If it is removed
it's 'cdo_version_removed' gets set accordingly.
With this enhanced mapping only one row for each inserted object is used
unless the identical object is reinserted after it was removed. Only in
that case 'duplicate' rows (with different 'cdo_version_added'
and 'cdo_version_removed') need to be created.
The new mapping will be almost as effective retrieving the to-many reference
for a given CDO version.
The old (current) query would be like this:
SELECT * FROM X WHERE cdo_version=?
and the new (proposed) query would be
SELECT * FROM X WHERE cdo_version_added <= ? AND (cdo_version_removed is
NULL OR cdo_version_removed > ?)
Please let me know your thoughts.
P.S.
I am currently unfamiliar with the code that does the DB mapping, but I
would be willing to help with the new mapping if I can get the necessary
pointers where I need to focus my reading to modify and test the proposed
mapping.
Lothar
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04580 seconds
Home