Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:46:14PM +0100, Jano wrote: >> Bob Ham wrote: >> >> > I think there are deeper issues to deal with. Even disregarding the >> > database, fred's memory footprint is massive. For the functionality >> > that it provides, it seems to me to be excessive. I can't understand >> > why fred would need anything in excess of a few 10s of megabytes. >> > Where is this memory going? >> >> I agree here. BDB seems a mature database; switching databases without >> really isolating the culprit seems premature. > > Bob's "deeper issues" are illusory; local configuration problems. > > BDB uses 54MB when I have told it to use 20MB. That is the issue here. > BDB is responsible for the majority of Fred's memory usage as of now as > far as I can see.
But why? Can we be sure that the fault is not in some kind of misuse of BDB instead of being intrinsic to BDB?
