Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Allan McRae
On 22/10/16 14:06, Alive 4ever wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:15:01AM +0800, Chi-Hsuan Yen via arch-general > wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Robin via arch-general < >> arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> I was curious why does 'pacman -Q' operations took

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Allan McRae
As the currently lead pacman developer... We will never have a sql (or other) database backend. When we did tests for the sync backends, using a single tar file gave the same speed-up as using some sql variant (and we still have not optimised any reading from that - for the sync "dbs", we

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Alive 4ever
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 02:15:01AM +0800, Chi-Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Robin via arch-general < > arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > I was curious why does 'pacman -Q' operations took longer than 'apt' > > > counterparts. > > Sounds

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Doug Newgard
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 03:53:20 + Alive 4ever wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 08:03:53PM +0200, Tinu Weber wrote: > Currently, pacman package includes a ``pacman-optimize`` script to do > manual periodic local database optimization. Not for long.

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Alive 4ever
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 08:03:53PM +0200, Tinu Weber wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 17:20:53 +, Alive 4ever wrote: > > [...] It seems that the local pacman databases are just subdirectories > > with text files (desc, files) and gzipped text (mtree). > > No wonder why local pacman databases

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Alive 4ever
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:44:42PM +0200, G. Schlisio wrote: > optimisation ideas to the pacman database are (nearly) as old as this > distribution, but none ever really convinced many. > if you go back through the archives of the mailinglists and forums (as > well as the outer parts of the

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread G. Schlisio
> I was curious why does 'pacman -Q' operations took longer than 'apt' > counterparts. It seems that the local pacman databases are just > subdirectories with text files (desc, files) and gzipped text (mtree). > No wonder why local pacman databases tend to slow down over time and > need to be

Re: [arch-general] KVM - *ERROR* failed to allocate VRAM BO?

2016-10-21 Thread David C. Rankin
On 10/21/2016 04:20 PM, David C. Rankin wrote: > Arch devs, > > I'm receiving an error with KVM (arch guest). The guest installed fine from > the 20161001 install media, but between every command, I receive the following > error: > > [TTM] Byffer eviction failed > qxl :00:02:0: object_init

[arch-general] KVM - *ERROR* failed to allocate VRAM BO?

2016-10-21 Thread David C. Rankin
Arch devs, I'm receiving an error with KVM (arch guest). The guest installed fine from the 20161001 install media, but between every command, I receive the following error: [TTM] Byffer eviction failed qxl :00:02:0: object_init failed for (402650032, 0x0001) [drm:qxl_alloc_bo_reserved

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread ProgAndy
Am 21.10.2016 um 21:48 schrieb Eli Schwartz via arch-general: The reason pacman uses a flat file database as opposed to a relational database, is the result of a deliberate design decision by the lead pacman developers. Therefore, I really really really doubt you will be able to convince them

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Eli Schwartz via arch-general
On 10/21/2016 01:20 PM, Alive 4ever wrote: > I was curious why does 'pacman -Q' operations took longer than 'apt' > counterparts. It seems that the local pacman databases are just > subdirectories with text files (desc, files) and gzipped text (mtree). > No wonder why local pacman databases tend

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Chi-Hsuan Yen via arch-general
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Robin via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > I was curious why does 'pacman -Q' operations took longer than 'apt' > > counterparts. > Sounds interesting but I have a few question about how did you measure > this and how big the

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Tinu Weber
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 17:20:53 +, Alive 4ever wrote: > [...] It seems that the local pacman databases are just subdirectories > with text files (desc, files) and gzipped text (mtree). > No wonder why local pacman databases tend to slow down over time and > need to be optimized periodically.

Re: [arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Robin via arch-general
Hi, > I was curious why does 'pacman -Q' operations took longer than 'apt' > counterparts. Sounds interesting but I have a few question about how did you measure this and how big the difference is. (Shouldn't be that big). Would be great if you provide more information on the comparability of

[arch-general] Implement sql/sqlite database for pacman local database

2016-10-21 Thread Alive 4ever
I was curious why does 'pacman -Q' operations took longer than 'apt' counterparts. It seems that the local pacman databases are just subdirectories with text files (desc, files) and gzipped text (mtree). No wonder why local pacman databases tend to slow down over time and need to be optimized