2010/3/30 Chen, Zhenqiang :
> Carlos Garnacho wrote:
>
>> As Philip said, we should take into account memory usage as well, and
>> keeping a hashtable for each known item is not going to be nice...
>> TrackerCrawler guarantees that any directory will be processed after
>> its parent folder, and all
Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> As Philip said, we should take into account memory usage as well, and
> keeping a hashtable for each known item is not going to be nice...
> TrackerCrawler guarantees that any directory will be processed after
> its parent folder, and all the items in a directory will be p
Hi!,
On lun, 2010-03-29 at 22:44 +0800, Chen, Zhenqiang wrote:
> When tracker starts up, it will check whether the entries in DB are
> up-to-date or not.
> Current logic is: for each file, there is at least one dbus-call from
> tracker-miner-fs to tracker-store which will execute a query.
> Thi
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 22:44 +0800, Chen, Zhenqiang wrote:
>
> 2) Reduce dbus calls and queries:
>
> (1) At the beginning, execute one query to get all the fileLastModified> pairs and put them in a hash table.
Problem here is that for people with a huge amount of files, the URL
keys will consum
When tracker starts up, it will check whether the entries in DB are up-to-date
or not.
Current logic is: for each file, there is at least one dbus-call from
tracker-miner-fs to tracker-store which will execute a query.
This is not efficient since dbus and query are expensive. (You can get the lo
