I agree with you, there's a crying need for something like that and
there's no single "one obvious way to do it" answer.
Have you looked at bsddb? See also www.sleepycat.com.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Just learned of this today, so I don't know enough details to judge
its suitability for you:
Durus
http://www.mems-exchange.org/software/durus/
It does not do locking, but alleges to be compact and easy to
understand, so perhaps you could modify it to meet your needs,
or find some other way to h
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:26:46 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> So the solutions that come to mind are some form of dictionary in shared
> memory with locking semaphore scoreboard or a multithreaded process
> containing a single database (Python native dictionary, metakit, gdbm??)
> and have all of
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:57:21 -0500, Eric S. Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Robert Brewer wrote:
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I have an application where I need a very simple database, effectively
a very large dictionary. The very large
dictionary must be accessed from multiple processes
sim
Olaf Zetanien wrote:
>
> Use Firebird as sql backend. Is designed as you request (readers not lock
> writers and writers not lock readers). Google for "firebird optimistic
> lock".
>
> Off course, you have python driver: http://kinterbasdb.sf.net and can
> deploy on windows and linux with a ver
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:26:46AM -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> I have an application where I need a very simple database, effectively a
> very large dictionary. The very large dictionary must be accessed from
> multiple processes simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records
> within
Thomas Bartkus wrote:
When you write that "super dictionary", be sure to post code!
I could use one of those myself.
hmmm it looks like you have just flung down the gauntlet of "put up or
quityerwhinging". I need to get the crude implementation done first but
I think I can do it if I can find a
"Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 99.9 percent of what I do (and I suspect this could be true for others)
> could be satisfied by a slightly enhanced super dictionary with a record
> level locking.
BUT - Did you not mention! :
> Estimated number
Ricardo Bugalho wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:33:26 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
When I look at databases, I see a bunch of very good solutions that are
either overly complex or heavyweight on one hand and very nice and simple
but unable to deal with concurrency on the other. two sets of point
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:33:26 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> When I look at databases, I see a bunch of very good solutions that are
> either overly complex or heavyweight on one hand and very nice and simple
> but unable to deal with concurrency on the other. two sets of point
> solutions that
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:33:26 -0500, Eric S. Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so in conclusion, my only reason for querying was to see if I was
> missing a solution. So far, I have not found any work using because
> they add orders of magnitude more complexity than simple dbm with file
> lock
Thomas Bartkus wrote:
"Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
at this point, I know they will be some kind souls suggesting various
SQL solutions. While I appreciate the idea, unfortunately I do not have
time to puzzle out yet another component. Someday I
"Eric S. Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> at this point, I know they will be some kind souls suggesting various
> SQL solutions. While I appreciate the idea, unfortunately I do not have
> time to puzzle out yet another component. Someday I will figure it o
Robert Brewer wrote:
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I have an application where I need a very simple database,
effectively a very large dictionary. The very large
dictionary must be accessed from multiple processes
simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records within
the very large dictionary when
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> I have an application where I need a very simple database,
> effectively a very large dictionary. The very large
> dictionary must be accessed from multiple processes
> simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records within
> the very large dictionary when records ar
I have an application where I need a very simple database, effectively a
very large dictionary. The very large dictionary must be accessed from
multiple processes simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records
within the very large dictionary when records are written to. Estimated
number
16 matches
Mail list logo
