james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IMAP] MessageRow and MessageFlags
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:00:58 GMT
On 3/13/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
> 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.

i can understand why some people may want to store message data in a database

what i cannot understand is why JAMES insists that it *has* to be
stored in a database

> > 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.

reads typically require no processing, just pushing the data out a
socket. i wonder whether a messaging solution would be better: allow
processors to access a JavaMail view of the message data but create
this lazily. if there is no processing required, the data is read
lazily to be written out.

> 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).

AFACT message_body contains the body as a blob (but performance is still poor)

- robert

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

View raw message