On Tue, June 21, 2005 2:12 am, Luigi Pinna said: > > I think that the database can have only the files names: the ebuilds' > maintainers can release the list of the file products from each ebuild > without the path. > The database is smaller (the path makes it a lot bigger...) and the > module system helps a lot to update the list.
I don't know what your architechture is, but if you're using a real database, you only really need maybe a kilobyte per filename (with path), and then maybe 10 bytes each time that file shows up in some configuration. If you have 10,000 filenames that makes for about 10MB for the directory tree. Then if each file shows up in 10 different configs that makes for about 1MB of association data. Now, if you're just storing ebuild, use-flag, filename-with path in a text file you're going to have about 1kb per association and that will end up faster. I guess it all depends on whether you're using multiple tables with a many-many relationship, or if you're just doing this in one big flat table, which will have a lot of redundancy. With multiple tables you just need to record each filename once and give it an ID (probably only 32 bits or less). Then you give each config an ID (also 32 bits), and then have a 8-byte-per-record table of associations between them. Just a thought... -- [email protected] mailing list
