Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:39:51 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SoC Message-ID: <4647F627.7020408@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20070513040651.GB1017@dwpc.dwlabs.ca> References: <20070513040651.GB1017@dwpc.dwlabs.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Duane Whitty wrote: > Garrett, > > Sounds like you're involved in a cool project. What kind of > community collaboration/involvement would be helpful to you? > > Once, a long, long time ago, I wrote quite a bit of bdb 1.85 > code. At that time it WAS the current version :) I might > actually remember a bit if I start working with it again. > But what would be most useful to you? > > And if I may ask about a design decision: Why did you choose > a hash structure? Perhaps if you have time you could give > a little more info but whatever fits your schedule. > > Good luck on your project. > > Duane Duane, I actually chose hash structure at the time because I thought it was appropriate for the size of the ports tree and the number of files that may need to be used. Plus, Kris suggested that :). Given the way that I've seen how things are used, this would be great for searching for who added what file, finding cyclic dependencies easily, maintaining uniqueness, etc, many common issues with the current ruby scripts. Also, the other available BDB options like btrees seem inefficient, over the long run :(.. Do you know of any simple APIs that can quickly dump fields in use with BDB .db files? I have a hunch given the Ruby that I've taken a look at with Portupgrade that something very inefficient's in play, but I want to test my assumption first before jumping to conclusions. Thank you very much for the help :)! -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4647F627.7020408>