On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Lachlan Andrew wrote: > Greetings Neal, > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 02:35, Neal Richter wrote: > > > Do you know for certain that the environment is the same? > > Isn't that the meaning of passing the DB_ENV argument to > CDB_db_create()? I'm not sure how else to make two databases share > an environment.
It is possible to create two different environments for the different DBs in the htdig classes that control them. > > It would be nice if I could duplicate this bug, but I've never been > > able to. > > As Geoff pointed out recently, anyone with a sourceforce account can > get a compile farm account. That has a mac which had the problem. > See > <http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=762&group_id=1>. Good point. > > This smells like something that should be handled in the WordDB > > class at the DB API level. > > Hmm... Perhaps, but the original aim of the compression was to make > it transparent. Since it creates its own database, that seems to me > to be the place to fix things. Maybe. I am hesitant to put lots of time into tweaking BDB code directly. 1)It makes moving to new versions of BDB harder 2)BDB is a VERY widely used piece of software and it is incredibly likely that most of the problems we encounter can be fixed at the BDB API level in our classes. This of course excludes our (Loic's) hacks to have ZLIB page compression. It comes down to treating the entire db directory as something we touch as little as possible.. and contain our code tweaking to mp_cmpr.c and a few other files. The more we tweak the more we diverge from stock BDB code and the more work we make for ourselves long term. We are 7 versions behind on BDB (we use 3.0.55). The changes/additions to the final 3.X (3.3.11) version are attractive. http://www.sleepycat.com/download/patchlogs.shtml > I agree that totally disabling the environment is a bit drastic. It > should be possible to create a new environment containing *only* the > weak compression database, but with all "shared" fields (other than > the memory pool) copied from the environment of the main database's > environment. How would that sound? Worth a try. > Regarding implementing a separate cache, that is certainly possible, > but it has the disadvantage of duplicating existing code. (I'm a big > fan of avoiding code bloat.) Yep. It looks like WordDBCache is supposed to do this, but it doesn't seem to be doing much. I used an STL hash and improved insertion time in the WordDB considerably. Probably due to queing up all the inserts in larger batches reduces overhead. > Cheers, > Lachlan > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ht://Dig developer DownUnder (http://www.htdig.org) > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > htdig-dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev > Neal Richter Knowledgebase Developer RightNow Technologies, Inc. Customer Service for Every Web Site Office: 406-522-1485 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
