Just learned of this today, so I don't know enough details to judge
its suitability for you:
Durus
http://www.mems-exchange.org/software/durus/
It does not do locking, but alleges to be compact and easy to
understand, so perhaps you could modify it to meet your needs,
or find some other way to
I agree with you, there's a crying need for something like that and
there's no single one obvious way to do it answer.
Have you looked at bsddb? See also www.sleepycat.com.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:26:46AM -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I have an application where I need a very simple database, effectively a
very large dictionary. The very large dictionary must be accessed from
multiple processes simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records
within
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:57:21 -0500, Eric S. Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Robert Brewer wrote:
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I have an application where I need a very simple database, effectively
a very large dictionary. The very large
dictionary must be accessed from multiple processes
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:26:46 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
So the solutions that come to mind are some form of dictionary in shared
memory with locking semaphore scoreboard or a multithreaded process
containing a single database (Python native dictionary, metakit, gdbm??)
and have all of my
I have an application where I need a very simple database, effectively a
very large dictionary. The very large dictionary must be accessed from
multiple processes simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records
within the very large dictionary when records are written to. Estimated
number
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I have an application where I need a very simple database,
effectively a very large dictionary. The very large
dictionary must be accessed from multiple processes
simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records within
the very large dictionary when records are
Robert Brewer wrote:
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
I have an application where I need a very simple database,
effectively a very large dictionary. The very large
dictionary must be accessed from multiple processes
simultaneously. I need to be able to lock records within
the very large dictionary
Eric S. Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
at this point, I know they will be some kind souls suggesting various
SQL solutions. While I appreciate the idea, unfortunately I do not have
time to puzzle out yet another component. Someday I will figure it out
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:33:26 -0500, Eric S. Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so in conclusion, my only reason for querying was to see if I was
missing a solution. So far, I have not found any work using because
they add orders of magnitude more complexity than simple dbm with file
locking.
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:33:26 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
When I look at databases, I see a bunch of very good solutions that are
either overly complex or heavyweight on one hand and very nice and simple
but unable to deal with concurrency on the other. two sets of point
solutions that
Ricardo Bugalho wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:33:26 -0500, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
When I look at databases, I see a bunch of very good solutions that are
either overly complex or heavyweight on one hand and very nice and simple
but unable to deal with concurrency on the other. two sets of
Eric S. Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
99.9 percent of what I do (and I suspect this could be true for others)
could be satisfied by a slightly enhanced super dictionary with a record
level locking.
BUT - Did you not mention! :
Estimated number of
Thomas Bartkus wrote:
When you write that super dictionary, be sure to post code!
I could use one of those myself.
hmmm it looks like you have just flung down the gauntlet of put up or
quityerwhinging. I need to get the crude implementation done first but
I think I can do it if I can find a
14 matches
Mail list logo
