[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML Storage Architecture

• To: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>,Jason Kohls <jkohls@i...>
• Subject: Re: XML Storage Architecture
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:30:37 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3F607035.A2C504EE@b...>
• References: <1490CBB3502DC34DB1085840C44B6AD4CE0E0B@m...>

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Joe ;->

Jason, you are really asking what the optimum way is to store some data for 
a particular task. I don't know what needs to be optimized until I know 
more about what you are doing with this data. Here are some questions that 
might be helpful for a start:

- What kind of data is this? Are there logical connections that would be 
lost if the data were divided up into smaller "chunks"?
- Are you creating many different kinds of XML documents from the same 
data, or do you retrieve it in the same form it was stored?
- How many users are anticipated? What kind of turnaround time is needed? 
For what kinds of requests?
- How is the data updated?

Jonathan

At 08:53 AM 9/11/2003, Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>Jason,
>
>There are some good solutions for this...someone will be along in the
>near future to talk about SQL/XML and XQuery.
>
>Over to Jonathan...
>
>Kind Regards,
>Joe Chiusano
>Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>
>Jason Kohls wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > We're looking at a content management system, which stores all of the 
> content/metadata in a single, 1 MB XML file on disk or as separate 
> records (for each parent element) in a two-field table in SQL, 
> out-of-the-box. Based on our rough content estimates, however, we can see 
> this file growing to over 100 MB easily.  The CMS provider says that 
> anything over 30 MB should use the SQL backend.
> >
> > The one thing that we do not like is the schema/data model (or lack of) 
> for the SQL storage option.  Coming from the relational camp, this seems 
> odd to us, and even on disk, hierarchically, it seems to make more sense 
> to break up this single XML file into smaller files (per parent element) 
> in a directory structure with an index.
> >
> > ...But then again, you guys are the experts :)
> >
> > Can anyone see any problems with this storage architecture from a 
> performance/stability/scalability standpoint?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Jason Kohls
   

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Storage Architecture
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• References:
  • XML Storage Architecture
    • From: "Jason Kohls" <jkohls@i...>
  • Re: XML Storage Architecture
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Differance between a TextNode and An AtomicValue
• Next by Date: RE: Differance between a TextNode and An AtomicValue
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Storage Architecture
• Next by thread: Re: XML Storage Architecture
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread