Re: dissection of search latency

[Marijn Meijles <marijn@bitpit.net>]

You wrote:
> 
> No, back-bdb does no locking of its own, everything is left up to Berkeley
> db. Makes me wonder about the approach though; I don't see back-bdb being
> viable as a general-purpose backend with such a high performance cost. Yes,
> some people will sleep better at night knowing they can recover from
> catastrophic disk failure, but those data-paranoid people also run redundant
> hardware already, and don't need to be coddled by overprotective software.
> 
Ehm, I think they do. The disk failure is one thing, but the whole point of
transaction stuff is to be able to rebuild not only after a hardware failure,
but also after an application crash which leaves the database in an inconsistent
state.

I don't see the problem, you could very easily put an entry cache into back-bdb or
put transactions into back-ldbm.

-- 
Marijn@bitpit.net
---
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.