At 07:26 PM 2/21/01 -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> > I don't think
> > that a relational client/server system would be more reliable,
> > but I'm certain that it would be slower.
> Not sure that I agree with the generalization, but it *is* generally true
The company line is that BDB is faster than a relational server
because you have to go out of process to fetch a record from a
standalone server, but with Berkeley DB, the IPC turns into a
function call. Of course, I'm speculating about the performance
of a relational server implementaiton that doesn't exist, so we
don't need this nail hammered all the way into the wood :-).
> As a sign of good faith :-), I've updated the documentation (in CVS). It
> doesn't appear to automatically propagate to the web site, but Karl can see
> that it happens.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
> Berkeley DB isn't used in M1, but will appear in M2. We don't have a current
> date for that, but I'd say sometime in March. As I mentioned before, it is
> more than just M1... we plan to ship it that way. We currently require at
> least 3.1.14, but I imagine that we'd want to upgrade that to your 3.2
> releases before our final release.
If you have questions or problems during the implementation, you should
let us know. Email to firstname.lastname@example.org will get our attention.
Be sure to mention that you're working on Subversion. I do encourage
you to make 3.2.9 the basis for the release, since newest code has the
most known bugs fixed. 3.1.14 and 3.1.17 are in wide deployment now,
and work fine, but if you get to choose, go for 3.2.
Jim Blandy wrote:
> Subversion is not yet deployed, but when it is, I think it would be
> great to have it on Sleepycat's site, assuming the other developers
> don't object.
I'll make a note to ping you again in a couple of months. Thanks a
lot for the quick response on the Web site.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:23 2006