Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:08 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Re-reading your original email...
>>>> The new API allows for compressing the text base files. Pretty much
>>>> transparently. So yah... there could be improvements.
>>>> But I still maintain that it doesn't matter. 1.6 comes with a lot of
>>>> improvements, and it needs sqlite.
>>> Could "entries" be moved to sqlite for 1.6? Too much work? Seems
>>> like that would yield an improvement.
>> Would it? Don't we keep entries in memory most of the time, attached to the
>> adm_access batons?
> Wouldn't issues like SVN connection timing out why we rewrite a large
> entries file go away if each "entry" is just a row in a table?
It's probably not the rewriting of the entries file that's killing us there.
I would suspect it's the processing of the log files as a whole, which
involves (besides just writing out the entries file) copying the files from
text-base to the working area, keywords expansion, newline conversion, etc.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-10-02 19:27:57 CEST