Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:29:10AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> The performance implications of not doing buffered reads just *kills* >> our server - so we need to do something and adding buffering lessens >> the load quite dramatically. In our situation, we couldn't care less >> about modifying the file - we only care to optimize the read-only case >> - and I believe that code is just fine and stable. Though I guess I'd >> prefer we fix the problems with buffering if they do exist. >> >> Would you be concerned if we added APR_BUFFERED to APR_DBM_DBMODE_RO >> for sdbm? -- justin > > No, that sounds fine, or just moving your change up inside the !(flags & > APR_WRITE) condition so that all apr_sdbm_* users benefit equally.
-1 on this change unless you compare the datum you do hit that it's still the record you expected. If we hit the wrong record (our copy of the buffered index page mismatched the found page) we must flush and retry once. If the retry fails, then error out. Bill
