Yes SQL tables are better for that as it's simpler to update them :)

2006/3/15, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:33:06PM +0200, tvali wrote:
> > I did think about it now and it seems to me that probably it would be
> > much faster if esearch is not just another package, but part of
> > portage.
> >
> > I mean -- functions of portage, which query db, should use esearch
> > index wherever they need information, which exists in that index.
> >
> > As much as i can understand, /var/cache/edb/ contains esearch database
> > in many files and is search index as python script.
> No...
> esearch is a static db- only useful for 'frozen' trees, eg rsync
> distributed trees with no eclasses in overlays.  All cvs users (devs)
> run unfrozen trees (readonly/readwrite is better terminology), thus
> portage updates the cache db on the fly as needed.
> If esearch was integrated into portage the result would be stale
> metadata for cvs users, and stale metadata for rsync users when
> overlays with eclasses are involved- no go.
> That and esearch last I looked just generates a giant dict (thus the
> cache is in memory), which kind of blows the <25mb mem usage 2.1
> now sports :)
> ~harring

icq: "317-492-912")

Ühe eesti internetifirma lehel kohtasin tsitaati:
If you don't do it excellently, dont do it at all. Because if it's not
excellent, it won't be profitable or fun, and if you're not in
business for fun or profit, what the hell are you doing here?
Robert Townsend

-- mailing list

Reply via email to