Joshua Bahnsen <archrival@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't know the roadmap for yum, so I didn't realize that sqlite files was > the way to go. It does make sense, though. > I won't go into details about the RHEL 3 and RHEL 4 yum setup I have... > > I have posted 3 compressed versions of other.xml from rhel-i386-server-5 > here: > > http://thejoshwa.com/upload/other.xml.7z > http://thejoshwa.com/upload/other.xml.bz2 > http://thejoshwa.com/upload/other.xml.gz > > All were compressed using the maximum compression available for each (gzip > --best, bzip2 --best, 7z a -t7z -mx=9 -m0=lzma). > > You can see the difference for yourself. Interesting, "7z" appears to be much faster than lzip ... and joyfully incompatible with either lzip or lzma (at least in your above use case), but the file sizes are close enough. After converting to .sqlite I get: 121M other.xml.sqlite 5.0M other.xml.sqlite.7z 27M other.xml.sqlite.bz2 39M other.xml.sqlite.gz 5.5M other.xml.sqlite.lz 5.4M other.xml.sqlite.lzma ...which is interesting, but looking at the data (Eg. primary, filelists, etc.) it looks like lzip/lzma/7z/etc. are just seeing that for each version of each package most of the changelog is identical. This means that's it's only a big win for changelog data, and maybe only enough of one while we continue to put every changelog entry since the beginning of time into the metadata. -- James Antill -- james@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Yum mailing list Yum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.baseurl.org/mailman/listinfo/yum
