Re: Re: darcs and patches@ mail

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:14:26 -0500
"Sean E. Russell" <ser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Saturday 14 February 2004 17:57, Adam Megacz wrote:
> > > Subversion isn't optimized enough (they still use berkleydb
> > > right?) :)
> >
> > I don't quite get the connection here... I have no love for SVN, but
> > BerkeleyDB often kicks the crap out of other databases when you
> > don't
> 
> I think what he means is that BerkeleyDB is a general-purpose
> database, and he proposes that a database specifically tuned to
> handle darcs patches -- that is, a special-purpose database that is
> structured to optimize access around how darcs is used -- would be
> more efficient.

Yes, that's what I meant. But, guys, it was only a half serious
answer to Sean's comment (hence the smiley).

> I disagree with him; I doubt any hand-crafted database could defeat
> nearly any direct access general purpose database (such as SQLLite
> or BerkeleyDB) that was set up and indexed properly; and if it did,
> it wouldn't be by enough to warrent the extra work.  But, at least,
> that's what I think he's saying.

Obviously, I claim you could get better performance, but I think
you'll agree with me that whether it is worth it or not can only be
answered by implementing it and comparing actual measurements.

> > give you ACID transactions and fast, efficient small files.  Hans is
> > the man.
> 
> Hear, hear.  I haven't been brave enough to venture into
> ReiserFS4-land; have you?  If so, what are your impressions?  (replies
> to this particular question can be made off-list, if you like, since
> they're off-topic for the list).

You really should check out the code.

Aggelos