Re: Backsql faster then sleepycat dbm?

["Dan Melomedman" <dmelomed@devonitnet.com>]

Michael Cunningham writes: 

> Hiya, 
>
> I was wondering if anyone has done any bench marks 
> regarding using the backsql option/mysql versus sleepycat db. 
> I am going to have roughly 2k entries in the ldap server with 
> approximatly 100 attributes each. If it isnt faster.. what would be a 
> compelling reason to use it over sleepycat.

What would be a compelling reason to use back-sql? back-sql is meant to be 
used for legacy data residing in SQL databases (in other words if you can't 
move it to LDAP for beureacratical or expense reasons), not as the primary 
store. Keep relational data in the relational databases, keep directory data 
in it's embedded database. Use back-sql only if you have to because it's 
mainly just a hack. 

Unless there is a performance problem with Sleepycat currently (and there 
have been such, and they were bugs), I can't see how an SQL database could 
be performing better (again, assuming sleepycat stuff is bug free (yeah, 
right)) when everything else being equal. 

There was a benchmark to see how well back-sql works with Oracle, you can 
find a reference to it using CVS viewer at openldap.org. Guess what, at the 
time of the benchmark, they found a bug affecting Berkeley DB's performance. 
As of now, there are deadlock issues with it if you follow openldap-devel 
list. 

Personnaly, I will use GDBM until they completely phase it out of the source 
tree. It's not as buggy, and you won't have to recompile your software when 
your *nix integrator updates BDB version. 



--