On 01/11/12 15:25, Klaus-J. Wolf wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well... I have a cunning plan... How about we do both! >> >> >> Have the local database in a tarball but also extracted. All reading is >> done from the tarball, so -Q operations would be fast due to not require >> reading from lots of small files. > > > If you use a separate database for faster access anyway, why not use a real > fast format like sqlite or such alike? It could be a fragile format since > the db would be regenerated after each access.
Because we already have all the code to read from tarballs - that is how the sync dbs are handled. > I personally see not much gain in this, it'd be a few milliseconds you save > on the cost of making a simple task unnecessary complex (I am follower of > the KISS principle :-). # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches # time pacman -Qi pacman-git ... real 0m13.242s >From experience with the tar backend for sync databases, this would decrease by at least 10 seconds. Allan
