I try to avoid getting involved in things like this not being a coder myself, but it seems that instead of questioning what the code does in a mailing list and making Seth et al answer emails instead of improving yum is somewhat counterproductive. I would say the best way to make yum better/faster/stronger would be to contribute to the source, provide accurate documentation etc. If you don't like the way yum does its hashes feel free to write new ones. Seth doesn't appear to be in the habit of blindly rejecting patches yet. ;-) -- Jim Perrin Helpdesk Administrator --On Saturday, May 01, 2004 12:00 AM +0200 "Mihai T. Lazarescu" <mihai@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, seth vidal wrote: > >> It's the getting the data into the hash that takes some time. >> >> and even that isn't too bad - but if you have enough packages it takes >> more time than when you have fewer packages. > > First idea: I remember that hashes are fast to search, but, > comparatively, very slow to grow. To overcome this, most > hash libraries allow to define an initial size, which should > be best guessed large enough to accomodate all the entries, > to avoid frequent time consuming resizes while filling. > Does your package offer this feature? > > Second idea: you mentioned package traversal as time consuming. > Is this time spent to open each package as a DB, grab the > info, close it? If this is the case, have you then considered > building a cache of package contents, which can be updated > and used in subsequent runs, to take advantage that most > (if not all) the packages do not change between yum runs? > > Hope it helps. Thanks for your efforts, Seth. Yum, as is now, > is simply great! > > Mihai > _______________________________________________ > Yum mailing list > Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
