Forum: Ruby Re: ruby sdbm library reliable?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
F3b7b8756d0c7f71cc7460cc33aefaee?d=identicon&s=25 Berger, Daniel (Guest)
on 2006-05-16 20:33
(Received via mailing list)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamey Cribbs [mailto:cribbsj@oakwood.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:11 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: ruby sdbm library reliable?

<snip>

> 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.

<snip>

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

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.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.