# Re: ruby sdbm library reliable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [May 16, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-ruby-sdbm-library-reliable/94864 "2006-05-16T20:33:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@BergerS\_Daniel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/BergerS_Daniel)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-ruby-sdbm-library-reliable/94864/1 "2006-05-16T20:33:00Z")
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jamey C. [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:11 AM > To: ruby-talk ML > Subject: Re: ruby sdbm library reliable? > So, I’ve been looking at ways to get around this. I would basically > look at replacing the back-end flat file format of KirbyBase with > something faster. Maybe the “one database equals one file” is the problem then. Could you use a separate text index file to speed up that process? I’m not a database design expert, but such a concept is not without precedent. Take a look at this: [http://www.spi.org/fmanual/d\_what.htm](http://www.spi.org/fmanual/d_what.htm) It summarizes the various files generated when creating a database for an engine called BRS Search. Mind you, BRS Search uses static databases (i.e. if you wanted to add records you had to rebuild the database), but it’s gawdawful fast. Or maybe that concept is totally orthogonal to what you’re trying to do. Like you I’m just brainstorming. 🙂 Regards, Dan This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.