kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net wrote on 10/14/2004 08:37:08 AM:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > > They both compress. The reasons BDB is bigger are complex, and have
> > > to do with how databases allocate storage.
> >
> > Er, no, BDB stores the head revision in uncompressed plaintext,
> > whereas FSFS stores all file revisions as deltas against something.
> > (The first rev of a file is stored as a delta against empty.)
>
> Sure, the head revision is uncompressed. But the vast majority of
> data in the repository is compressed, and therefore I think it's fair,
> when speaking in general terms, to say that the repository is
> compressed. (Unless the question was specifically about head, which I
> may have missed.)
I believe Greg's point is that the presence of these full-texts,
especially if you have a lot of branches, accounts for a lot of the
difference in the repository sizes. Also, if I understand Greg, even the
head revision in fsfs undergoes some degree of compression, such as
stripping out whitespace etc...
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 14 16:35:01 2004