Re: GSoC - Designing a faster index format

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:33:33PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM, David Barr <davidbarr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Another implementation in this general class is TinyCDB[1].
> > It is <1600 lines of plain C. Too few to be complete?
> > It is a derivative of DJB's CDB[2].
> >
> > [1] http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/tinycdb.html
> 
> "CDB is a constant database, that is, it cannot be updated at a
> runtime, only rebuilt.". It does not sound promising to me. I have not
> read the description carefully though.

No, you are right. I did some work with cdb many years ago. It optimizes
for lookup by spending time building an optimal hash table at generation
time. There is no way to add or modify an entry short of rewriting the
complete contents of the database, which is exactly what we are trying
to get away from with the current index format.

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]