;Elephant bugs and development"
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [elephant-devel] QDBM Support
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 10:35 +0530, Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy wrote:
Robert,
I am the one who started this thread, so let me clarify.
The background: I am starting to work on
ment"
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [elephant-devel] QDBM Support
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 10:35 +0530, Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy wrote:
Robert,
I am the one who started this thread, so let me clarify.
The background: I am starting to work on a .NET-based application
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 22:34 -0500, John DeSoi wrote:
> SQLite seems like it would be the ideal database for this project
> since it is easy to embed in an application and has no license
> hassles. I don't really know anything about BDB, but I'm surprised
> the
> performance of a properly inde
On Feb 14, 2008, at 8:54 PM, Robert L. Read wrote:
In order to deploy with Postgres you will have to write a script to
create the db with the correct name. That is all that you will have
to
do, in order to have a system that technically runs.
Even if PostgreSQL is already on the target sy
nal Message -
> From: "Robert L. Read" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Elephant bugs and development"
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [elephant-devel] QDBM Support
>
>
> > On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 10:35 +0530, Rangarajan K
s like too much trouble!
Thanks for your advice.
Regards,
Rangarajan
- Original Message -
From: "Robert L. Read" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Elephant bugs and development"
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [elephant-devel] QDBM Support
On T
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 10:41 -0500, Ian Eslick wrote:
> The answer to all of this, I think, is having a native lisp version
> that has BDB's performance and no licensing restrictions. Then
> supporting the other two becomes: Postmodern for a higher degree of
> reliability as well as for distr
I am not a lawyer either, but I believe there is some confusion. You
correctly give a link to the most recent versions of BDB, which is
released by Oracle under quite different conditions than the original
sleepycat license.
By my reading of this license,
http://www.oracle.com/technology/softwar
t;, I am for it!
>
> Regards,
> Rangarajan
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert L. Read" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Elephant bugs and development"
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [elephant-devel] QDBM Supp
quot;Elephant bugs and development"
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [elephant-devel] QDBM Support
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 10:41 -0500, Ian Eslick wrote:
The answer to all of this, I think, is having a native lisp version
that has BDB's performance and no licensing res
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 16:06 -0500, Ian Eslick wrote:
> Re: Tokyo Cabinet
>
> The API is nearly identical to BDB's. I think a TC version of the
> datastore would be pretty easy to do. The only way it makes sense
> to
> me to do this is to deprecate the BDB data store as of the next
> major
About the Lisp backend project, it is an interesting project and I
really would like to help, but I don't really know if I have a lot of
time during the coming months. I will try to help as much as I can
though. On my CV is that I have spent some days to find a subtle bug
in the the rucksack btree
I don't claim to be an expert and I don't exactly remember the details
but historically the linux/*bsd filesystems didn't like it when you
had tens of thousands or more files in a single directory... using a
deep directory structure such as /c/d/f/cdf383d3.dat helped alleviate
the problem somewhat
On using the filesystem for storage. I once made an experimental
backend for rucksack that used files (one per object). I tried several
filesystems including ReiserFS (which uses B+trees), but the
performance was not good. So, I think it is no accident that the
dirstorage page does not mention per
Also, from what I can tell, it doesn't run on Windows yet so that is
another consideration...
On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Ian Eslick wrote:
Re: Tokyo Cabinet
The API is nearly identical to BDB's. I think a TC version of the
datastore would be pretty easy to do. The only way it makes sen
Re: Tokyo Cabinet
The API is nearly identical to BDB's. I think a TC version of the
datastore would be pretty easy to do. The only way it makes sense to
me to do this is to deprecate the BDB data store as of the next major
release. Any thoughts on this?
Depreciation:
Speaking of whic
one (perhaps insane) idea to make an all-lisp backend easier to
implement was to leverage the underlying file system ala ZODB
directory storage, since the file system is probably using B-trees
anyways. there are fairly good architecture docs on
http://dirstorage.sourceforge.net/
tokyo cabinet lo
In general, I'm with Henrik on this. I'd rather see us get Elephant
to a reasonable degree of feature completeness before we start to add
more non-lisp datastore functionality. You can use postmodern for
licensing purposes and BDB for performance.
The answer to all of this, I think, is ha
I had never heard of this project, but I it seems that Tokyo Cabinet
describes itself as fast, has transactions and can handle multiple
clients which is good. And it has a tcp/ip interface and protocol so
you wouldn't even need uffi/cffi to interface it from Lisp. Tokyo
cabinet seems to map to the
Does QDBM have inverted indices that work against their main BTrees?
The Odium API looks like me like it is specialized on text data.
You can do range queries over B-trees with several of QDBM's
interfaces, but it doesn't look like the system links to the value
indexed by a primary key f
Technicalities aside, isn't the spirit of that license essentially:
"if you make money off BDB, we should too". So SVN is a product that
is free, BDB is too. I also thought that commercial web sites using
BDB as a store were intended to be covered too - that seems to be the
community conc
> I recently purchased LispWorks for Windows. Downloaded Elephant and was able
> to make it
> work with BDB. Thanks (and congrats!) for such a nice package. I have heard
> that QDBM is
> much better than BDB in terms of performance and does not have the same
> licensing issues
> (there are roya
Hi,
I recently purchased LispWorks for Windows. Downloaded Elephant and was able to
make it work with BDB. Thanks (and congrats!) for such a nice package. I have
heard that QDBM is much better than BDB in terms of performance and does not
have the same licensing issues (there are royalty payment
23 matches
Mail list logo
