From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/5817 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Blacka Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: nndb mailing list? Date: 29 Mar 1996 12:13:38 -0700 Organization: Fuentez Systems Concepts, Inc. Sender: blackad@ipcsun3.den.mmc.com Message-ID: References: Reply-To: dblacka@fuentez.com NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146365 1484 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:39:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA08304 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:00:23 -0800 Original-Received: from arlh012.den.mmc.com (arlh012.den.mmc.com [160.205.18.17]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 20:09:34 +0100 Original-Received: by arlh012.den.mmc.com (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA151636823; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:13:43 -0700 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Joe Hildebrand's message of 29 Mar 1996 08:58:07 -0700 Original-Lines: 34 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5817 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:5817 >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Hildebrand writes: Joe> Also BTW, we did some more testing on the differences between gdbm and Joe> berkeley db. Gdbm wins *big* on disk space (like one less digit in Joe> the bytes column), and is not noticeably slower. It will probably be Joe> the default in 0.8. We'll also include a script to convert one to the Joe> other. Ok. Joe lied here a bit. GDBM does actually win big on disk space: Berkeley DB isn't really very space efficient when the data you are storing has widely different sizes (like mail bodies), so the Berkely DB file grows to enormous size. For instance, I probably have at most 1 Meg of mail stored in a 7 MB mail.db file. GDBM gets you much closer to the actual size of the data. However, GDBM and Berkeley DB only have comparable speeds when you are hitting a local disk. In my testing so far, GDBM suffers from incredible performance problems over NFS, while Berkeley DB behaves about the same. Thus, if you are storing your mail.db file on a local disk, switching over to GDBM is probably a real good idea, otherwise it would probably be best to wait until Joe and I rework the whole backend of nndb. Assuming we can get all this to work, Joe and I will put all of the message bodies in a separate database, and then write Tie:: modules to implement different storage schemes. The overview databases will always be stored in a (separate) DB hash of some sort. I'm guessing that the MH style storage scheme will probably be the best and become the default. Dave -- David Blacka |dblacka@fuentez.com Software Engineer |Fuentez Systems Concepts