james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: [IMAP] MessageRow and MessageFlags
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:10:37 GMT
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.

> 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.  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).

> AIUI JAMES supports basic message data operations for a variety of
> backends. IMHO it would be a more elegant design to split the message
> meta-data from the message data. the message data could then be stored
> in any existing JAMES backend.

We do separate most meta-data from the data.  The split isn't as clean as I
would like, but it is present.

> > I can't think of any good reason to use Torque or any other O/R mapper,
> > other than that they were used for expedience.  Let's ditch it for
> > SQL statements, and optimize access.

> i don't think that moving away from torque is worth the effort ATM.
> it's possible to hand-patch problems areas.

OK.  For now.  :-)

	--- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message