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

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:10:57 +0200

Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:27:09 +0100:
> On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
> >
> > In what way are you then comparing the backends?
> >
> > You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching.
> >
> > I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we should do it for
> > the right reasons, not by using skewed numbers.
> Caching is part of the FSFS backend. One would assume that a key-value
> database like BDB would have its own cache, which is therefore
> implicitly part of the BDB back-end. I don't see how you could construe
> these numbers as skewed.

Just look at all the different svn_cache__t instances in FSFS. They
include, for example, a cache of combined svndiff windows --- that's not
something the db layer is going to have.
Received on 2013-01-06 15:11:56 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.