| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sunday 02 May 2004 12:40, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 01:46:00PM -0400, Jerry McBride wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Move away from the filesystem database that portage currently uses to |
| 7 |
> > something with a bit more perfomance... mysql, sqlite even postgres... An |
| 8 |
> > SQL backend interface would be WONDERFUL. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Port portage to c or c++. Python sucks in the performance department... |
| 11 |
> > If not port to c then atleast start using psyco for a small perf boost... |
| 12 |
> > Rebuilding the cache (reading files) after a sync is... terrible... What |
| 13 |
> > a kludge... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The performance issues are db-related, nothing at all to do with Python. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The performance issues are partially db-related, but the biggest "problem" is |
| 18 |
having to call bash. The current caching in portage is still stored in a |
| 19 |
file-based "database". The difference in access times of the portage database |
| 20 |
and the cache is that the cache files have a set format. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Dropping the cache "kludge" and reading directly from the portage database |
| 23 |
(whether flat-file or sql or whatever) would require huge changes in the |
| 24 |
structure of ebuilds themselves. At minimum, it would require no usage of |
| 25 |
bash in the global section. This is something that will need a *lot* of work. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iQCVAwUBQJTHo1oikN4/5jfsAQJw0gP/Q4d+A8x2iXPPwheO8j5g06ppAWQMGMB3 |
| 33 |
US1KqkK3ECp0Gjq1aSCMkEycadcbgByO0GE+boKciLSKf2Fqvceit4XTTsL3cco5 |
| 34 |
ZO+YaTObO/ihfNYuNw/q58cvYpfjYyk+IgJ0LEnxL+rrtfmq3e5fQ2brRT32B8dj |
| 35 |
ICxTHxJ/Np4= |
| 36 |
=Km24 |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives