Thanks everyone for responding.
I'll use QDBM as most attractive from my point of view. Oracle BDB is
to complex for my task and have drastic free license with unknown price
for commercial use. Licensing is not a main issue for me now,
but i'll beware it to be on the safe side.
I think that
On 2008-May-13 22:06:21 +0100, James Mansion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And is the objection to SQL such the sqlite is really out of the running?
There is no specific objection to SQL. There is a general objection
to adding more utilities to the base system unless a _very_ good case
can be made
On May 13, 2008, at 2:06 PM, James Mansion wrote:
Kurt J. Lidl wrote:
This catapults back into the arena of stuff that isn't in the
base system. Not to mention I'm not sure that the Oracle BDB
license would allow bundling in the OS as a binary. I doubt it,
but that's a different bikeshed to
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:25:16AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Most of the complaints about other DBs is licensing related, but SQLite's
complaint was also the fact that the past stability record was a bit rocky.
One other thing to watch for in SQLite is the lack of atomicity
in updates.
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:06:21PM +0100, James Mansion wrote:
Kurt J. Lidl wrote:
There are known problems with certain keys corrupting the DB 1.8x
series code. In fact, the release of the 1.86 was an attempt
to solve this problem when the KerberosV people at MIT found
a repeatable key
On 20080514 09:50:52, Kurt J. Lidl wrote:
Heck, the last time I looked (admitted, a while ago), it didn't
even enforce column type checking on tables. (Put this string in
the INT column? No problem!)
They consider it a feature. Nobody knows why.
On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:17:28 +1000 Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-May-13 22:06:21 +0100, James Mansion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And is the objection to SQL such the sqlite is really out of the running?
There is no specific objection to SQL. There is a general objection
to
Some years ago I mailed patches out to someone regarding
Berkeley DB 1.85 btree problems. The two issues which come
to mind are...
1) The page split position is improperly computed.
This can cause corruption when a very full
page has an item which is very large inserted onto it.
The
Jeff Anton wrote:
Some years ago I mailed patches out to someone regarding
Berkeley DB 1.85 btree problems. The two issues which come
to mind are...
1) The page split position is improperly computed. ...
2) The record put code has a last page put to member ...
I'm going to have to dig up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Anton wrote:
[...]
| I'm going to have to dig up these fixes, but presuming
| I do, who should be alerted? Just file a bug? Recreation
| is extremely difficult.
I think Oracle is maintaining a webpage about their known bug/fixes here:
Kurt J. Lidl writes:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:25:16AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Most of the complaints about other DBs is licensing related, but SQLite's
complaint was also the fact that the past stability record was a bit rocky.
One other thing to watch for in SQLite is the
On 2008-May-14 09:50:52 -0400, Kurt J. Lidl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One other thing to watch for in SQLite is the lack of atomicity
in updates. It's not ACID, just like BDB 1.8x isn't ACID.
This isn't true. SQLite does provide full ACID. One difference from
(eg) Oracle is that you need to
On 2008-May-14 10:24:10 -0400, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiosity - there seems to be an unspoken assumption that
the ports system can only use tools that are part of the base
system.
There have been suggestions that the ports/package infrastructure
(pkg_* tools, portsnap
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:20:26AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2008-May-14 09:50:52 -0400, Kurt J. Lidl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One other thing to watch for in SQLite is the lack of atomicity
in updates. It's not ACID, just like BDB 1.8x isn't ACID.
This isn't true. SQLite does provide
On Thu, 15 May 2008 05:45:29 +1000
Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-May-14 10:24:10 -0400, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just out of curiosity - there seems to be an unspoken assumption that
the ports system can only use tools that are part of the base
system.
There have
Monday, Mike Meyer May 12, 2008, 11:24:30 PM, you wrote:
MM On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 Anthony Pankov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because BDB:
1. do not need additional installation
2. is part of base system which mean it is mature, reliable and stable
MM BDB in the base system is
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
If concurrency is the only problem then:
1. ?an data corruption be avoided? Or this is impossible?
2. How?
Use Sleepycat/Oracle DB instead? The libc DB1.x, despite being
mature, really should be deprecated in some manner.
I'm
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
3. reading/writing = 60%/40%
I don't know where you get those numbers from, but they feel *very*
wrong from the perspective of someone who actually dealt a lot with
those tools. Writing is only a very small part of the operations
On May 12, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Kurt Lidl wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 1:38 AM, Anthony Pankov wrote:
Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86).
Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which
guarantee from curruption or it is fully
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
My requirements is
1. there is no need for SQL
2. processes are sharing db file in concurrent mode
3. reading/writing = 60%/40%
With BDB
clause 1 - satisfied
clause 3 - satisfied (databases of relatively small items that are
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 05:14:52AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 03:44:06PM +0400, Anthony Pankov wrote:
If concurrency is the only problem then:
1. ?an data corruption be avoided? Or this is impossible?
2. How?
Use Sleepycat/Oracle DB instead? The libc DB1.x,
On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:44:06 +0400
Anthony Pankov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Monday, Mike Meyer May 12, 2008, 11:24:30 PM, you wrote:
MM On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 Anthony Pankov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Because BDB:
1. do not need additional installation
2. is part of base
Kurt J. Lidl wrote:
This catapults back into the arena of stuff that isn't in the
base system. Not to mention I'm not sure that the Oracle BDB
license would allow bundling in the OS as a binary. I doubt it,
but that's a different bikeshed to paint :-)
Is the LGPL of QDBM and TokyoCabinet
Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86).
Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which
guarantee from curruption or it is fully undesirable to use BDB under
high load?
It is important for me because of using BDB in my project.
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at
On Monday 12 May 2008 10:38, Anthony Pankov wrote:
Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86).
Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which
guarantee from curruption or it is fully undesirable to use BDB under
high load?
It is important for me because
So, can anyone make clear about BDB 1.86 (which is a part of base
system).
When
1. there is no need for SQL
2. processes are sharing db file in concurrent mode (key=value pair)
3. reading/writing = 60%/40%
the first idea is to use BDB.
Because BDB:
1. do not need additional installation
2. is
On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:35:31 +0400 Anthony Pankov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because BDB:
1. do not need additional installation
2. is part of base system which mean it is mature, reliable and stable
BDB in the base system is mature, reliable and stable *for what it's
used for in the base
On May 12, 2008, at 1:38 AM, Anthony Pankov wrote:
Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86).
Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which
guarantee from curruption or it is fully undesirable to use BDB under
high load?
It is important for me because
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 1:38 AM, Anthony Pankov wrote:
Please, can anybody explain what is the problem with BDB (1.86).
Is there known caveats of using BDB? Is there some rules which
guarantee from curruption or it is fully undesirable to use BDB under
high load?
It is
29 matches
Mail list logo
