On 11 July 2014 22:15, Blake McBride <blake1...@gmail.com> wrote: 1. It seems that GDBM is really a file manager and not a database. What I > mean by that is that there is a one-to-one relationship between a Unix file > and a GDBM file. You can't store multiple "files" in one Unix file like > SQLite. If this is true, it is perfect in terms of our debate. Is that > correct? >
This is correct. One file means one hash table. > 2. I'm not sure if I fully understand the conclusion of David's last > longish email. It sounded like he is abandoning the old code and moving > towards a GDBM solution. That sounds good, and I think there is likely a > good fit. I also sensed that he is proposing to use his existing > implementation to represent GNU APL's conforming Annex A implementation. > Is that true? > No. I believe he was saying he'd drop the non-SQLite support. My argument was that he could change to GDBM instead of SQLite since GDBM matches his vision much more closely. Regards, Elias
