On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:11:42AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:53:40AM -0700, stan wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:52:32 +0200
> > Michael Schroeder wrote:
> >
> > > So, suggesting different databases is fine and all, but they have
> > > to be integrated and we
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:53:40AM -0700, stan wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:52:32 +0200
> Michael Schroeder wrote:
>
> > So, suggesting different databases is fine and all, but they have
> > to be integrated and well tested. We re-added support for multiple
> > database just for that, so that
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> On 11 July 2017 at 16:48, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>>
>>> On 11 July 2017 at 07:52, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:41:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> And we do use SQLite today in DNF with the yumdb, as well as the n
On 11 July 2017 at 16:48, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>
>> On 11 July 2017 at 07:52, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:41:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
And we do use SQLite today in DNF with the yumdb, as well as the new
SWDB coming soon(TM). I'
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> On 11 July 2017 at 07:52, Michael Schroeder wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:41:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> And we do use SQLite today in DNF with the yumdb, as well as the new
>>> SWDB coming soon(TM). I'm not sure why the SQLite backend was removed
>>> in rpm
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:13:58PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> Could you possibly summarize what you remember about those tests? What
> scenario did you look at? Was the difference more like seconds vs hours,
> or microseconds vs milliseconds?
I found some of my old mail back. In my
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:52:32 +0200
Michael Schroeder wrote:
> So, suggesting different databases is fine and all, but they have
> to be integrated and well tested. We re-added support for multiple
> database just for that, so that we can test things and decide what
> to do.
Does this mean it wou
On 11 July 2017 at 07:52, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:41:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> And we do use SQLite today in DNF with the yumdb, as well as the new
>> SWDB coming soon(TM). I'm not sure why the SQLite backend was removed
>> in rpm 4.9.0, but maybe it should be
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:41:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> And we do use SQLite today in DNF with the yumdb, as well as the new
> SWDB coming soon(TM). I'm not sure why the SQLite backend was removed
> in rpm 4.9.0, but maybe it should be revisited for rpm 4.14.
AFAIR it was removed because it
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Björn 'besser82' Esser:
>
>> Well, the RPM db on my desktop system is about 193 MBytes, from which
>> the most amount (170 MBytes) comes from the 'Packages' db… I'd still
>> consider that several MBytes given today's state of technology an
* Björn 'besser82' Esser:
> Well, the RPM db on my desktop system is about 193 MBytes, from which
> the most amount (170 MBytes) comes from the 'Packages' db… I'd still
> consider that several MBytes given today's state of technology and
> SQLite should be able to deal with databases of that si
Am 11.07.2017 um 05:49 schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Leonid Podolny said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the database here is several thousands rows in
total, several MBs in size. Every database engine should be fine. We probably
care much more about things like ease of development, st
Once upon a time, Leonid Podolny said:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the database here is several thousands rows in
> total, several MBs in size. Every database engine should be fine. We probably
> care much more about things like ease of development, stability, proper
> locking and such.
On
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the database here is several thousands rows in
total, several MBs in size. Every database engine should be fine. We probably
care much more about things like ease of development, stability, proper locking
and such.
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Jos Vos wrote:
>
>
On 07/10/2017 09:16 AM, Jos Vos wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Oups, that was meant to be: On which side?
LDBM was many factors faster than SQLite. No concrete figures,
it was a year ago or so when we decided to go for LMDB (still
a product in devel
* Jos Vos:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:14:07AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> The web page has:
>>
>>Improvements and stabilization of "ndb" (New RPM DB Format database
>>format)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The problem is that "NDB" is a custom homebrew database invented in
>> the
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Oups, that was meant to be: On which side?
LDBM was many factors faster than SQLite. No concrete figures,
it was a year ago or so when we decided to go for LMDB (still
a product in development...). I had attended some talk fr
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:27:38PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:51:57PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:44:31PM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
> >
> > > If you say:
> > > create table col1(key blob primary key, value blob) without rowid;/
> > >
> >
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:51:57PM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:44:31PM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
>
> > If you say:
> > create table col1(key blob primary key, value blob) without rowid;/
> >
> > you physically get no more/no less simple key/value store (given 30 more
> > l
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:44:31PM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
> If you say:
> create table col1(key blob primary key, value blob) without rowid;/
>
> you physically get no more/no less simple key/value store (given 30 more
> lines of trivial code for implementing your favorite key/value lib
> op
On 2017-07-10 12:28, Jos Vos wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:14:07AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The web page has:
Improvements and stabilization of "ndb" (New RPM DB Format database
format)
[...]
The problem is that "NDB" is a custom homebrew database invented in
the RPM
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:14:07AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > The web page has:
> >
> >Improvements and stabilization of "ndb" (New RPM DB Format database
> >format)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > The problem is that
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:15:53PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = System Wide Change: RPM 4.14 =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.14
>
> The web page has:
>
>Improvements and stabilization of "ndb" (New RPM DB Form
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:14:07AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> The web page has:
>
>Improvements and stabilization of "ndb" (New RPM DB Format database
>format)
>
> [...]
>
> The problem is that "NDB" is a custom homebrew database invented in
> the RPM codebase. I agree that
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:15:53PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = System Wide Change: RPM 4.14 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.14
The web page has:
Improvements and stabilization of "ndb" (New RPM DB Format database
format)
...
Changing database from bdb to ndb requir
25 matches
Mail list logo
