Hi Martyn, thanks for testing this.
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 19:29 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote: > Test B (FTS4) > ============= > > -rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn 25M Feb 14 18:33 meta.db > -rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn 1.5M Feb 14 18:34 meta.db-wal > Test B (0.14.5) > =============== > > -rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn 24M Feb 14 18:49 meta.db > -rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn 9.8M Feb 14 18:53 meta.db-wal > Conclusions: > ============ > > For Test B, the database size for Tracker with FTS4 is much smaller. So The size of the WAL journal is not directly related to the database size. The main database file is nearly the same size, though, so the new setting doesn't appear to have had a big impact in this test. > while we might be indexing more words (i.e. those which are smaller than > 3 characters), we're still a smaller database. The reason for this could > be that we were previously duplicating data (Carlos can confirm this) > and now we're using the data only once. Either way, a smaller database > is always preferred if we can have it. We weren't duplicating data before either. Upstream fts3 was, but getting rid of that duplication was one of the major reasons to use our own version of fts3. Regards, Jürg _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
