On 21.06.11 14:19, David F. Skoll wrote:
InnoDB may be better, but it's not as fast as CDB, and certainly
slower than a local CDB file.
did you make any measurementsor are you just guessing?
Just the TCP round-trip time will make MySQL slower than local CDB files.
spamd caches the DB connection, does it cache open CDB's?
I don't mean having the files in the memory cache, but caching the
DB indexes, since opening files is usually the slowest part, similarly to
using spamd vs, calling spamassassin binary each time...
Furthermore, the design of CDB is
inherently lock-free so there are no contention problems for multiple
readers.
yes, the cdb has to be rebuilt every time from scratch.
Finally, local files scale much better as you add servers because each
new server gives you a new chunk of disk bandwidth. Any centralized database
(MySQL, PostgreSQL) is much harder to scale in this way.
If you want to scale local files, you can scale local MySQL servers the same
way. Yes, it's a bit different, but proper scaling may not be a good
argument here.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Emacs is a complicated operating system without good text editor.
