On 11 July 2017 at 07:52, Michael Schroeder <mls@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:41:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> 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. > > AFAIR it was removed because it was unbearable slow, nobody used it, > and nobody wanted to maintain it. > 1. It was very slow.. and developers complained a lot about how long it took to get various things done. 2. Because it was slow people would think it was deadlocked and lots of debugging would be done to show it was just slow. 3. When it did deadlock it was very hard to debug because a lot of the problems seemed to be system dependent. Move the db over to some other system and no deadlock. Move it back, deadlock, rebuild the system maybe it would deadlock maybe it wouldn't. 4. When it was put in there were a lot of people who were happy to help debug etc, however most of them were not the level of debugging actually needed as the problems were rarely the queries themselves as much as the locking/rollback/multiple user code 5. Rollback did not always rollback. I believe there are about 4 or 5 other reasons that were being complained about during that time. > Here's a bit of technical input for discussions about rpm's database: > > 1) Background: how rpm uses the database > > 2) Problems with Berkeley DB > 3) What about ndb? > 4) Does it make sense to use a self-made database? > 5) This looks to be a cross operating system development versus a RH NIH development. > -- > Michael Schroeder mls@xxxxxxx -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
