Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:17:49 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <4FE9E0AD.7070005@netfence.it> In-Reply-To: <op.wgilfxbv34t2sn@tech304> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE97008.2060501@netfence.it> <4FE97AE1.9080109@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE9817C.7020905@netfence.it> <op.wgilfxbv34t2sn@tech304>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/26/12 16:34, Mark Felder wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:31:40 -0500, Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> > wrote: > >> >> The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever) >> to update the package database 3 times as much as before. > > pkgng uses sqlite. Please provide proof that it is as slow or slower > than our current package database is. I cannot. However I don't think that's the point. A faster DB system with 3X records might perform better or worse than current DB system with X records; even if the balance was positive, it would still be slower than the new DB system with X records. That is still a reason against splitting in the wild. bye av. P.S. I'd gladly try sqlite instead of the current pkgdb and see: is it possible to switch without any side-effect or complication?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FE9E0AD.7070005>