[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: choice of DB (was: Re: I'll help with db debugging)

From: Tripp Lilley <tlilley_at_perspex.com>
Date: 2001-04-03 09:20:08 CEST

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Greg Stein wrote:

> In this case, it isn't a premature optimization. We know that data access
> will be a large issue. Second, the choice of binary vs text was independent
> of our main decision point: programmer productivity. Why implement a (text)
> database, when we already have a database ready and waiting for us?

I preface my comments by reminding you that I've been too busy reading the
list to read the design docs :) So if you're already doing this... you
know.

Is svn storing the plaintext head revision and plaintext deltas "in the
filesystem", or "in the DB"? Again calling on my experience with Perforce,
I know that they store the -source- itself in RCS form reverse-delta
plaintext files. They then store the -metadata- in "some binary format".
Should the metadata become corrupt, you will not have the entire
integration / submission / etc., history, but you will at least have the
files themselves, and the individual revision history of the files (which
is obviously better than zilch, and usually sufficient relief for anyone
suffering a catastrophic failure in the absence of regular backups).

If you're at present storing -everything- in the DB, it might be at least
worthwhile to investigate such separation as described above for "a future
release".

-- 
   Joy-Loving * Tripp Lilley  *  http://stargate.eheart.sg505.net/~tlilley/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Fiber makes you poop." -- From <http://www.pvponline.com/bts_studio.php3>
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:27 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.