Gentoo Archives: gentoo-performance

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-performance@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:57:39
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance by Paul de Vrieze
Hash: SHA1

> 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.
Searching works off of the cache for the most part, if a cache entry is stale, it's updated (eg the ebuild is opened and srced). Unless you're not checking the cache and updating it as you proceed, you're implementation ought to suffer the same limitation.
> 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,
There are 2 things that need to be done (in my books at least) to step up the speed of a description search- A) sql based cache backend, whether sqlite or mysql. Either that, or extend the flat cache to store the descriptions in a central index. B) alter the search description alg so that instead of stepping through each entry getting the description, we just state "give me all packages that have a description matching blar", and leave it up to the backend to decide what is the most efficient way to search. With flat cache, we'd still have to go file by file; w/ a sql variant, it could take advantage of the appropriate syntax. Since there is code for a sql based cache backend, B has been bounced around in #gentoo-portage a bit. Prior to it actually happening I would think the sql db code would need to be cleaned up/QA'd/etc. Course, there still is the issue of verifying that the cache entry isn't stale... :)
> We need something > that works in such a way that even a corrupted tree gets into a good > status > after updating.
Err, eh? If the tree is corrupted, and sync'd against a good/non-corrupted tree, it ought to be reverted to a sane state. ~brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBBYxevdBxRoA3VU0RApzhAKDBI59X1EcaKA0SdjjuoXvLx98ndQCeOKFi zoCzNhViFLuZObVorDRvggU= =GWOF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-performance] Re: Re: portage performance Jesse Guardiani <jesse@×××××××.net>
Re: [gentoo-performance] Re: portage performance Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>