On Tue, 13 May 2008, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > I think this is a really bad idea. The problem with the tools is > > not with the files. It is that the files need to be parsed on each > > run, often recursively, and your solution would not help at all. > > Parsing one file isn't expensive; parsing several hundred files > to find one bit of information is expensive. > > > The database(s) should just be a cache of the information stored in > > the files. > > Bingo! As long as the .db version can be easily recreated > from scratch from the master data stored in the same files > as always, it doesn't really matter if the BDB is occasionally > corrupted, as long as it can be rebuilt fairly quickly.
So long as you can tell it is corrupted.. It's also a drag from a user POV when the tool crashes because the DB is hosed (seen in portupgrade a number of times) -- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
