> Making an Sqlite db with just the uri and raw text caused an almost 3x > increase in the text cache size (3.6 MB (on-disk) vs. almost 15MB in > my test case). This despite the fact that the size of the raw text was > only 7.9 MB. I need to figure out why this happens. In the mean time, > I also implemented another version of this which stores (uri, gzipped > text) pairs in the Sqlite db instead of (uri, raw text). Surprisingly, > this actually seems to work very well (the db for the test case > mentioned shrunk down to 2.6 MB, which is just a little more than the > actual size of the compressed data itself).
> Current TextCache: > no-disk-cache: ~1m > with-disk-cache: ~9s > > New TextCache (raw and gzipped versions had similar numbers): > no-disk-cache: ~42s > with-disk-cache: ~10s The numbers look pretty good. Size on disk is the main focus here. The disk cache will come into heavy play on a machine constantly serving queries. So even if that suffers a little bit (but only a little bit), I think its still ok if we gain in other places. The speedup with no-disk-cache is an added bonus. Do the performance degrade when looking up small result sets ? In the current implementation, that will involve lesser disk seek whereas for the sqlite based approach, the I/O overhead will probably be similar. - dBera -- ----------------------------------------------------- Debajyoti Bera @ http://dtecht.blogspot.com beagle / KDE fan Mandriva / Inspiron-1100 user _______________________________________________ Dashboard-hackers mailing list Dashboard-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dashboard-hackers