On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 16:11 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: >On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 20:11 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: >>Vadim Nasardinov writes: >> > On Friday 11 March 2005 14:04, Andrew Haley wrote: >> > > > Does this get amortized so that you don't regenerate it for each package >> > > > in a transaction? Otherwise are we getting O(n^2) work? >> > > >> > > It's very fast. 0.7 seconds for all of jonas, and that's 300 jarfiles >> > > and 40,000 classes. >> > >> > That doesn't answer his question though, does it? >> >>No, it doesn't, but it does suggest that it's a second order effect >>and so probably not worth worrying about for the time being. >> >>There is an N^2 effect, yes. But if we're to do anything more >>sophisticated maybe RPM will have to have some sort of new >>functionality. > >Yeah, I was just being paranoid. IIRC we had some problems on the >desktop when regenerating mimetype databases, and scrollkeeper for >documentation. I think scrollkeeper was the big offender here, since it >wasn't fast, and its database regeneration hook used to bring RPM to its >knees (successively regenerating the database for package 1, then for >package 2, etc all the way through a transaction) /me fears he has started something bad here; premature optimization is the root of all evil.
