Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Just playing devil's advocate on this issue. I'm not against it by
> any means, but have a few questions.
>
> On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>
>> One could also have the revprops stored as single files if they are
>> modified
>> after packing. The lookup code would first try to open the single
>> revprop file
>> and if it doesn't exist, then it goes to the packaged file. The
>> packer could
>> allow for multiple repackings.
>
> In repositories which have a large number of modified-then-packed
> revprops, this leads to much more storage, and double the I/O. I'm
> kinda wary of this.
Not that this is the best solution, but I don't think you can say this solution
is bad for IO and then claim the sqlite one is a good solution. sqlite probably
does much more IO than one extra open() call that will fail for 95% of the
unmodified revprops for this solution. I like the sqlite solution, I just don't
think it wins on IO.
Blair
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1897561
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-24 22:56:01 CEST