[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Accessing berkely database files



On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:39:14 GMT
"s. keeling" <keeling@spots.ab.ca> wrote:

> Micha Feigin <michf@post.tau.ac.il>:
> >  Is there any program available for linux (preferably packaged for
> >  debian), that would allow me to examine the contents of berkely
> >  database files? (I think that they are version 3)
> 
> Version 3?!?  Perhaps I'm comparing apples and oranges (BDB vs. Btree?)[0],
> but bogofilter here uses BDB "Btree, version 8", which
> sounds to me like you're researching ancient history.  However, bf
> also supplies bogoutil, which can dump (export) its BDB.  bogoutil is:
> 

It is very ancient history (data from some old vetrinary clinic program which
is no longer supported but still in use by a friend but causing some problems
and I'm trying to read the files to be less blind about this.

Turns out that it's a borland paradox database though, just as old I'm afraid.

Managed to dump parts of it and now I need to figure out why window messes up
and whether it will run on wine so that she can bypass windows alltogether.

>    ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for
>    GNU/Linux 2.2.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped
> 
> so perhaps you can learn its secrets from the code.  I see there's
> also libberkeleydb-perl if you're perl friendly.
> 
> This is on Sarge.
> 
> 
> [0] Ah, sorry, digging a bit deeper (/usr/share/doc/bogofilter/README.db)
> mentions:
> 
>   Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 3.1.17: (July     31, 2000)
>   Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 3.2.9:  (January  24, 2001)
>   Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 3.3.11: (July     12, 2001)
>   Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.0.14: (November 18, 2001)
>   Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.1.25: (December 19, 2002)
>   Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.2.52: (December  3, 2003)
>   Sleepycat Software: Berkeley DB 4.3.27: (December 22, 2004)
> 
> so perhaps not quite as ancient as I thought.
> 
> 



Reply to: