> Sebastian Nowicki wrote: > > > > On 12/03/2009, at 7:18 PM, Xavier wrote: > > > >> Otherwise, go go sqlite :) > > > > Wasn't there a (set of) patch(es) for a "packed" format for the > > databases (tar-like, iirc)? From what I remember there was a > > performance improvement. > > There was talk about moving to a tar based back-end but I don't > remember patches. There was some patches for an sqlite backend but > given we already need libarchive to extract the packages, a tar based > backend makes more sense to me. > > Allan
tar backend is optimal with read-only (== sync) databases, but I am not sure it would work with local database. See also: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8586 And Dan has a "backend" branch which may make the first steps. Bye _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
