Re: back-bdb performance

[Markus Storm <Markus.Storm@mediaWays.net>]

> 
> bdb 10000, new indexing
> ldadd 6.170u 0.750s 0:33.51 20.6%     0+0k 0+0io 644pf+0w
> slapd 20.760u 2.420s 0:35.93 64.5%    0+0k 0+0io 3084pf+0w
> 
> Pretty good, finally faster than back-ldbm. The transaction log size is
> 27MB. The database size is about 12MB (id2entry + dn2id). Using this in
> back-hdb will be just about ideal.
> 
> As for search/read speed, I don't have a good metric yet. My current runs of
> test008-concurrency all execute in about 52 seconds, no matter if it's
> back-ldbm, back-hdb, or (back-bdb with new index code). All of the
> search/read iterations finish quickly, and the bulk of the time is the
> add/del task.

Do you also have any figures on concurrent write access ?

back-bdb uses BDB's Transactional Database Store while back-ldbm
uses BDB's Concurrent Database Store which has a single-writer
bottleneck.
So I hope back-bdb will allow for faster writing which IMHO would
be the main advantage over back-ldbm.

regards,
Markus

PS: bdb-4.0.14 is out.