One approach to avoid migration and backwards compatibility issues would be to support a standard storage and an extended storage side by side. The storage and query functions would know beforehand which layout variant the current database is in, and they could use the appropriate optimized functions. If dynamic lookup of these layout-specific functions would be too costly, maybe providing two separate binaries (classic and extended storage) might be an option. I cannot fathom how many pieces of code need to be modified in order to be able to maintain a common codebase for both layouts. I’m certainly naïve in this regard because back in the days, I thought: How hard can it be to move from a 16 bit architecture to a 32 bit architecture?
Gerrit
On 02.11.2018 17:25, Christian Grün wrote:
Hi Gerrit,
thanks for your generous offer to sponsor the requested feature. I am ashamed to confirm it’s been a long time since this issue has been opened and not closed yet. You are asking how much money will be required to get this fixed. I’m not sure after all. Maybe I would rather ask for 3, 4 weeks of “leisure time”, or – even better – get a proposal into my hands how this could be resolved without compromising backward conformance.
Some more details: The current storage layout per node has been fixed to 16 bytes. One byte (8 bits) is reserved for the namespace reference. The other 15 bytes (minus a few unused bits) are reserved for other references and flags. We could extend the storage to 24 or 32 bits. As a result, the central database main table would get larger, so this would affect both old databases (that need to be imported) and the overall performance of the system. If we decide to go this step, we could indeed overcome various of the current limitations.
Any volunteers out there who are ready for the challenge? Christian
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:40 PM Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex gerrit.imsieke@le-tex.de wrote:
Hi Sergei,
The corresponding issue will turn 5 next March: https://github.com/BaseXdb/basex/issues/902
If you are an XML developer who wants to index all the XML, XSLT, XProc, RNG, XSD, Schematron, etc. files on your hard disk in an XML database, chances are that you’ll need more than 256 namespaces.
I’m willing to shell out up to 1,200 Euros (plus VAT) out of my own pockets for this feature. Any other funders? Christian, how much do we need to raise collectively for you to prioritize storage layout redesign?
Gerrit
On 31.10.2018 22:47, Сергей Чесноков wrote:
Hi all,
Is it possible to bypass the following restriction (I cannot change "ep_ins_med_q.xsd" (Central Bank xbrl scheme))?:
BaseX 9.1
Command: CREATE DB bfo D:/portal/xbrl/CBR/final_1_3_1/Taxonomy_1_3_1/www.cbr.ru/xbrl/bfo/ Error: "D:/portal/xbrl/CBR/final_1_3_1/Taxonomy_1_3_1/www.cbr.ru/xbrl/bfo/rep/2018-03-31/ep/ep_ins_med_q.xsd""ep_ins_med_q.xsd" (Line 21): Too many distinct namespaces (limit: 256).
Best regards, Sergei.
-- Gerrit Imsieke Geschäftsführer / Managing Director le-tex publishing services GmbH Weissenfelser Str. 84, 04229 Leipzig, Germany Phone +49 341 355356 110, Fax +49 341 355356 510 gerrit.imsieke@le-tex.de, http://www.le-tex.de
Registergericht / Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Leipzig Registernummer / Registration Number: HRB 24930
Geschäftsführer / Managing Directors: Gerrit Imsieke, Svea Jelonek, Thomas Schmidt