Difference between revisions of "ESciDoc Cache"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*high availability | *high availability | ||
*embedded into the application code (no need for separate storage) | *embedded into the application code (no need for separate storage) | ||
::i don't understand the point about the storage. "embedded" in the case of berkeley db does only mean, it's server-less as far as i know.--[[User:Robert|Robert]] 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
*java api | *java api | ||
*http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/index.html | *http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/index.html | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
*check integration with Lucene for administrative searches additionally | *check integration with Lucene for administrative searches additionally | ||
==Lucene== | ==Lucene== | ||
Revision as of 16:20, 21 October 2009
Berkeley DB[edit]
- high performance
- high availability
- embedded into the application code (no need for separate storage)
- i don't understand the point about the storage. "embedded" in the case of berkeley db does only mean, it's server-less as far as i know.--Robert 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- java api
- http://www.oracle.com/database/berkeley-db/index.html
- open source for open source projects
- check integration with Lucene for administrative searches additionally
Lucene[edit]
- separate index for all latest versions (instead of DBCache) (feasible)?
- for items: an item contain all attributes needed to cross-check the authorization
- instead of appending SQL to filter, would it be possible to append query to the user query that deals with auth data?
- is the problem how to actually derive this query?
- is this also valid for containers? (i.e. an item may be a member of several containers, but i think this has nothing to do)
If this would be possible, no additional cache would be needed?