[Yum-devel] [PATCH][RFC] Optimizing SqliteSack

[James Antill]

On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 15:07 +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
> James Antill wrote:
> >  Where did the number 10 come from? That seems like a small number of
> > packages to have prco info. for.
> It is the number of packages we have PRCOs in memory. I choose 10 because it 
>   doesn't hurt my test cases. May be we need to increase the number if we 
> run into problem with some cases that are out of my attention right now.
> 
> >  Also it seems weird to have the LRU cache over each of prco as though
> > they are different. It also seems like if we are trying to save memory
> > (esp. for large transactions), then the obvious change is to have
> > packages share prco data (Eg. zlib requires is a subset of glib
> > requires, and I bet that's very common).
> 
> This sounds very expensive as you need to match the prco against each other. 
> The current solution just loads them and discards them if the pkg is ok. Be 
> aware that searching is done in the sqlite and we need the Prcos only when 
> looping over them in Depsolve.check*().

 I meant something like the attached, tested and seems to share a
significant amount of prco data even for "small" updates.

-- 
James Antill <james.antill at redhat.com>
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sqlitesack-prco-share.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1468 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum-devel/attachments/20071214/20e606f6/attachment.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum-devel/attachments/20071214/20e606f6/attachment.pgp