help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kristaps Dzonsons <>
Subject: Re: half-atomically rebuild databases
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:45:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 01/03/12 14:19, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:07:48PM +0100, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
>> On 01/03/12 13:45, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 05:29:58PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>>>> Hi Joerg,
>>>> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote on Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 04:55:08PM +0100:
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 04:45:38PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>>>>>> This is not perfect because the mandocdb process might get -KILLed
>>>>>> between the two renames, but i don't see a syscall anywhere to
>>>>>> atomically rename *two* files.
>>>>> Why do you have to?
>>>> There are two files to rename(2):  whatis.{db,index}.
>>> Well, let me repeat the question, that is the point of having two
>>> databases.
>> Joerg---you mean to ask why I originally used two separate database files?
> Yes.


Duplication.  By having the keyword database point to the index database 
entries, I avoided having duplicate index data everywhere---and this 
data can be huge since it includes titles, descriptions, and so on. 
Considering that the number of keywords is expected to grow as we add 
more values (full-text search?), this is quite important.  Since libdb 
has only one table per file...

It's still debatable whether using recno(3) for the index is a good 
idea.  The general usage is to hit the btree(3) then look up in the 
recno(3) (btree(3) is harmless, I think, but useless: we don't do 
lexicographic lookup as I'd originally thought).

However, look-up is slow in recno(3).  I can definately see a case for 
using btree(3) or even hash(3) in place of recno(3).

Make sense?

 To unsubscribe send an email to

  reply	other threads:[~2012-01-03 13:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-01 15:45 Ingo Schwarze
2012-01-01 15:55 ` Joerg Sonnenberger
2012-01-01 16:29   ` Ingo Schwarze
2012-01-03 12:39     ` Kristaps Dzonsons
2012-01-04  0:29       ` Ingo Schwarze
2012-01-03 12:45     ` Joerg Sonnenberger
2012-01-03 13:07       ` Kristaps Dzonsons
2012-01-03 13:19         ` Joerg Sonnenberger
2012-01-03 13:45           ` Kristaps Dzonsons [this message]
2012-01-03 13:49             ` Joerg Sonnenberger
2012-01-03 23:59               ` Ingo Schwarze
2012-01-04  0:09             ` Ingo Schwarze

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).