IE> Is anyone still using the CL-SQL store?
the poll says no one, except one vote in "testing" section
IE> release, although SQLite support is the only way to use Elephant with a
IE> cheap, free, easy to install/ distribute backend.
i think a backend using SQLite directly would make a lot of
2009/1/3 Ian Eslick :
> Hi Yarek,
>
> Others may add to this, but the big issues I'm aware of are:
>
> BDB
> + fast
> + can be shared among multiple processes on a single machine
> - commercial use requires license
>
> Postmodern
> - 5x slower than BDB (last I checked)
> ++ can be shared among mult
H
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what's going on. I'll look into
this tomorrow.
Cheers,
Ian
On Jan 3, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> HD> Which of stable/unstable do you recommend using?
>
> i think we'll eventually switch to "unstable", so if you're planning
> for the
MVCC support is now available for the Elephant BDB backend (Thank you
Alex for the prompting on this - I finished adding support for it
months ago but never actually tested it). It appears to work,
according to db_stat.
To enable it, simply put (:berkeley-db-mvcc . t) in your my-
config.se
HD> Which of stable/unstable do you recommend using?
i think we'll eventually switch to "unstable", so if you're planning
for the future, this would be a better option. also the more people
use it, faster we will find all bugs in a new version. OTOH in a short
term perspective "stable" is more te
To clarify a typo regarding the new darcs repository naming scheme
elephant (the old 0.9.1 tree + a few patches, will rename to
elephant-0.9.1 eventually)
elephant-unstable (will be removed after Alpha 1.0 is announced)
elephant-1.0 (the new development tree, will be tagged with each
release)
Hi All,
I'm in the process of cleaning things up and announcing an Alpha of
release 1.0 with the current state of the unstable tree. Since we
recommend just about everyone move to unstable when they have a
problem, I think that clarifying the current recommendation and its
current status
(I fixed that oids-only problem. It's a tweak I'm adding to improve
join efficiency in the new query planner. Sorry that crept into the
main code base).
I highly recommend you switch to the new repository, elephant-1.0. We
should be able to figure out any problems you have shortly.
Regar
Hi Glen,
How are things going on the skiplist hack and CFFI? I'm going to
release an Alpha of 1.0 shortly and am starting to think about what
goes into a beta release... Are you likely to have any time to
contribute in the next few months? Thanks again for the documentation
help last ye
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Ian Eslick wrote:
> Do you have the latest version of elephant-unstable as of a day or two
> ago?
Indeed I do. See my reply to Alex.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mai
Changing to use elephant stable gets rid of the problem. Not sure why I
was using unstable - I know I switched back and forth several times when
trying to get something to work when I started working with elephant.
Which of stable/unstable do you recommend using?
BTW, to use unstable I ha
Is anyone still using the CL-SQL store? Robert and I have discussed
deprecating it in this or a future release, although SQLite support is
the only way to use Elephant with a cheap, free, easy to install/
distribute backend.
RE: BDB locks - you can increase the lock count pretty easily in th
Do you have the latest version of elephant-unstable as of a day or two
ago? The *current-transaction* behavior you mention is suspicious and
I recently made a change to that part of the code which may have
inadvertently made a change that effected the postmodern policy.
Ensure transaction
Hi Yarek,
Others may add to this, but the big issues I'm aware of are:
BDB
+ fast
+ can be shared among multiple processes on a single machine
- commercial use requires license
Postmodern
- 5x slower than BDB (last I checked)
++ can be shared among multiple machines
+ open source
Neither system
14 matches
Mail list logo
