Re: dpkg binary dbase
On 8 Sep 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Bruce" == Bruce Sass <bsass@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
> Bruce> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, David Wright wrote:
> >> Quoting Bruce Sass (bsass@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca):
> ...>
> >> > The result is still human readable and editable with any text editor,
> >> > if you know the codes. The "special dpkg editor" would just make life
> >> > easier for those not wanting to look up or learn any codes.
>
> And now the question is how much of an advantage this would
> offer, considering that one has now got to ensure that both the
> databases never get out of sync.
I was not considering it as a second database, or that two would be
required (after all, it is still human-readable and printable).
A scheme involving two DBs _will_ get out of sync at some point....
How much the code overhead needed to minimize the possibility, and
recover when it happens, eats into the savings gained from using a
binary DB is yet to be addressed.
> I suspect that the minor advantages in speed and memory usage
> may ot be worth the effort.
Well, considering that it is a single DB scheme that merely changes the
common strings into numbers, I don't think the effort would be very big.
later,
Bruce
Reply to: