[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Antw: Re: mdb and bdb

To: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Subject: Re: Antw: Re: mdb and bdb
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:40:24 +0100
Cc: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>, Friedrich Locke <friedrich.locke@gmail.com>, openldap-technical@openldap.org
In-reply-to: <532AA913020000A100014ECF@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> (Ulrich Windl's message of "Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:38:43 +0100")
References: <CANMDHqe=UjcSt4=biUXiuDcNTYFyX7SfN2JKGnQpLAdCOqzp-g@mail.gmail.com> <22F1A85EF4DD7A64904D8541@[192.168.1.46]> <5329D3DC.3060800@symas.com> <532AA129020000A100014EBF@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> <532A9562.6070301@symas.com> <532AA913020000A100014ECF@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>

* Ulrich Windl:

> When reading, you just say that MDB has some features BDB does not
> have. Does that make BDB obsolete technology? I think it depends on
> the user's demands.

Berkeley DB supports arbitrary key sizes.  For some use cases, this is
quite handy, but it's apparently not relevant to OpenLDAP.

Multiple concurrent writers are nice on paper, but probably are not
worth the complexity for an in-process database.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Antw: Re: mdb and bdb
  - From: Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>
- Re: Antw: Re: mdb and bdb
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>

References:
- mdb and bdb
  - From: Friedrich Locke <friedrich.locke@gmail.com>
- Re: mdb and bdb
  - From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>
- Re: mdb and bdb
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Antw: Re: mdb and bdb
  - From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
- Re: Antw: Re: mdb and bdb
  - From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Re: Antw: Re: mdb and bdb
  - From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>

Prev by Date: Re: mdb and bdb
Next by Date: Re: Antw: Re: mdb and bdb
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread