Gentoo Archives: gentoo-performance

From: Jerry McBride <mcbrides9@×××××××.net>
To: gentoo-performance@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:15:33
Message-Id: vv4qp1xllh.ln2@spinner.my.domain
In Reply to: [gentoo-performance] portage performance by Jesse Guardiani
Jesse Guardiani wrote:

> Hello, > > First off, sorry if this isn't the right place! > I didn't see anything more appropriate though, except > perhaps Portage-dev, but I'm not a developer. > > I'm a FreeBSD user switching to Gentoo for my home > system. Linux 2.6 is a LOT more stable than any > FreeBSD 5.x-RELEASE kernels right now, and Linux > has much better support for Wine and such. > > One of the most obvious differences between FreeBSD > ports and Gentoo Portage is how LONG it takes to > search for ports/packages with Portage. > > I have 525 ports installed on my FreeBSD laptop right > now, and probably only half of that installed on the > Gentoo machine, but the gentoo machine crunches a lot > more doing a --search than the FreeBSD machine does > with a pkg_version -vs 'name'. > > And forget about --searchdesc! That takes ages! > > Is portage not hash indexed or something? >
The BIG hitch in portage is the database strategy....it's file system based. Basicly it's thousands of small text files... you want to update the database?.... open, read, close over and over again.... It sucks. Portage is crying for an sql database backend... mysql, sqllite, mmsql... anything would be nice. Tell us more about your bsd ports, it sounds interesting... -- gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance Jesse Guardiani <jesse@×××××××.net>