Gentoo Archives: gentoo-performance

From: Colin Kingsley <ckingsley@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-performance@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:16:51
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance by Paul de Vrieze
> The basic problem in searching is actually that it isn't implemented smartly > in current portage. I have working (emerge -s like) code that is blazingly > fast as it does not actually open all ebuilds. Doing description searching is > impossible to do fast without some kind of cache. I don't think creating a > reliable cache for that is going to be a priority, but it is certainly > possible ;-).
Wouldnt a database used only for the purpose of description searches be relatively easy to implement? after all, the description string doesnt change based on masking, keywords, installed packages, version numbers, etc. Thus, most of the dificulty of maintaining the database is eliminated. Unless I am way off:)
> > As for rsync, the amount of files is too big, and I would like to reduce that > amount, but I don't see databases being a good replacement. We need something > that works in such a way that even a corrupted tree gets into a good status > after updating. >
just a thought, but couldn't a database somehow involving the mtimes be used to decide which files to rsync? I"m not to sure on this, I just thought it might spark some good ideas.
> Paul > > -- > Paul de Vrieze > Gentoo Developer > Mail: pauldv@g.o > Homepage: > > > > > -- > gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list > >
-- gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance Blue Cantral <omghaai@×××××××××.za>