Hi,<br><br>Sometime ago, there was a discussion regarding how should the document history be stored in a better way.<br><br>Right now, the complete history is stored as one field in the xwikidoc table. From my PoV, this has some major disadvantages:
<br>- loading an older version requires parsing all the history -&gt; memory inefficiency<br>- as the documents grow older, loading a document will take a lot of time -&gt; time inefficiency<br>- queries on archives cannot return just one version, but they match the whole document (somewhere in the history, there was a version containing &quot;search term&quot;)
<br><br>The blocking issue with storing old version in a different table was, at that time, the fact that a document archive should contain all information needed for completely restoring the document, like content, metadata, objects.
<br><br>I don&#39;t think that is actually an issue. We are archiving document versions, but we&#39;re joining all versions in one large string. Why don&#39;t we archive the complete version, but one version per row?<br><br>
So, the archive table should look like:<br>- document name<br>- version number<br>- language (for translations)<br>- content<br>- archived metadata (one field, or the same fields as in xwikidoc)<br>- archived objects (one field)
<br>- attachment names and versions<br clear="all">It is not like storing the version as a normal document is, with separate objects and properties, but at least it provides a better storage and retrieval mechanism, and it separates a bit the parts of a wikidocument - content, metadata, objects.
<br><br>WDYT?<br><br>-- <br><a href="http://purl.org/net/sergiu">http://purl.org/net/sergiu</a>