On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Björn 'besser82' Esser: > >> Well, the RPM db on my desktop system is about 193 MBytes, from which >> the most amount (170 MBytes) comes from the 'Packages' db… I'd still >> consider that several MBytes given today's state of technology and >> SQLite should be able to deal with databases of that size with >> reasonable time consumption when it comes to queries. > > Obviously, that depends on how the database is defined and if the > queries are half-decent (so that not everything has to fall back to > full table scans). > > And it's not just about processing time. With small VMs and > containers, it's also about not putting everything into RAM. > >> There are in fact some technical limits in LMDB, but wouldn't it be more >> feasable to put man power into fixing those limits, than spending time >> on some homebrew solution? > > I think SQLite would be the better choice, after comparing the > upstream reactions (not features) when discussing RPM's special > requirements with them (key sizes, read-only access without locking). And we do use SQLite today in DNF with the yumdb, as well as the new SWDB coming soon(TM). I'm not sure why the SQLite backend was removed in rpm 4.9.0, but maybe it should be revisited for rpm 4.14. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
