BC wrote: > Hi Sam - > > That is a pretty good synopsis of what he is doing. Doesn't he claim to > find *any* sought after data in no more than 7 seeks? Maybe I misread > that somewhere. :) > > My take on the below would be that if spamdyke remains a qmail-only spam > blocker, then going with a cdb-based database would be okay (with the > provisos you point out.) But if spamdyke is ultimately going to go > mainstream (work for most any MTA), then I'd say pick the database you > like the best.
I'm thinking that no database might just be the best for this particular application (spamdyke). I don't know where people get the idea that databases provide better performance than a native filesystem. The database is implemented on top of a native filesystem after all. ;) If someone is really interested in speed, why not simply put spamdyke's config file(s) on a ram drive? > Bucky > > > On 10/22/2009 spamdyke-users-requ...@spamdyke.org wrote: > >> So I said all that to say this: I don't personally believe CDB files >> live up to the hype, nor do I believe they solve any real-world >> problems >> (they're still binary formats, they can't be shared between servers, >> etc) but if people want them I can support them. >> -- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list spamdyke-users@spamdyke.org http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
