https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134421
Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #8 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- Meta-comments -------------- (In reply to Miklos Vajna from comment #4) > I would say this only makes sense if somebody is interested in doing the > work, then profile it and demonstrate that the perf gain is indeed > significant. I am not. :-) That's not how our bugs work. If it's a good idea we should mark as NEW, and the question of when someone has time to do this is one for developers (or the ESC, or ecosystem companies etc. which take prioritization decisions). (In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #5) > but since both they concern Base and Base is already lacking dev people, > perhaps no need to add some extra dev work. Base now has a developer... Vissarion, I've added you to the CC list, would appreciate your input in light of comment #5. The actual suggestion ----------------------- Telesto, I believe your justification for a file format switch is somewhat flawed. We could use an XCU file format and still not "rewrite the XCU thousands of times". Also, if we memory-map the XCU, the writes are actually memory-only, not disk action. However - an incremental, journal-like format would mean that we don't have to rewrite; and that a write or update does not require shifting the contents of half the XML around. Assuming SQLite has that - then it's a reasonable candidate format. I am slightly worried about compatibility between an XML tree structure and a relational table structure, but that's not such a big deal. I wonder, though, if that's the only option for a journaling file format usable for configuration. Is it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
