[Rpm-maint] Rpm Database musings

Jan Zelený jzeleny at redhat.com
Fri Apr 19 10:24:44 UTC 2013


On 19. 4. 2013 at 12:08:42, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 03:50 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 03:30:52PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> BTW there seems to be a bug in newrpmdb, related to the pkgidx/datidx
> >> handling for the cases where ovldata is non-zero. It's masked by a
> > 
> >> typo/thinko in the testit.c header data size calculation:
> > Yes, the ent + idxdb->nslots * 8 is completely wrong. Fixing...
> 
> Thanks, things are looking much better now. Quite good even, considering
> what a quick and dirty hack the glue-code on rpm side is at the moment:
> 
> My local newrpmdb test-branch can now do a full 'rpmdb --importdb',
> perform installations and the test-suite is down to just two failures.
> At least the other one is just missing glue-code to handle the the case
> of "get all package id's from an index", the other one might well be
> related to that too.
> 
> I've only timed --importdb so far but amusingly enough, newrpmdb is
> considerably faster there than BDB, even in the very rough and
> non-optimal state of things. For my test-case of --importdb of 2197
> packages:
> 
> For non-fsynced version (as is normally the case with --importdb):
> newrpmdb: ~4.8s
> bdb: ~7.7s
> 
> When fsync is forced, newrpmdb took 2m 42s on one run. With BDB I ran
> out of patience around nine minutes mark. Based on Packages size it was
> somewhere around 60-70% at that point...

Impressive!

Jan


More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list