| 1 |
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:50:18PM +0200, tvali wrote: |
| 2 |
> Another question now is about sync. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I did read somewhere, that this is not good user behavior to sync more |
| 5 |
> than once per day. I understand that as if this is a huge download |
| 6 |
> even if there is nothing changed. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Isnt it nice idea to have this database just optimized? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I mean (assuming portage using SQL now) -- that would be really simple |
| 11 |
> to log every change in portage tree as series of SQL queries, which |
| 12 |
> would reproduce this change. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Pushing the delta (what you're suggesting) is only usable if it can be |
| 15 |
guranteed the user hasn't modified their tree at all (thus resulting |
| 16 |
in cache db differing from upstreams). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That right there is the brass tacks of it; You wouldn't be able to |
| 19 |
push just the changes, you would have to regenerate the _whole_ db |
| 20 |
(slow, >20k inserts assuming only one table). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Sidenote... please post seperate threads for seperate |
| 23 |
ideas/discussions, else it's damn hard to look back and pull the |
| 24 |
specific thread were something was discussed. |
| 25 |
~harring |
Archives