[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] RFE: Offer LMDB as an alternative engine to BDB for rpmdb (#128)

[Per Øyvind Karlsen]

2017-01-16 8:04 GMT+01:00 Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at laiskiainen.org>:

> On 01/16/2017 02:51 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/15/2017 04:03 PM, Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how true it is, but it seems to bear out with the number of
>>>> previously BDB users now being LMDB users.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unless a different DB offers substantial advantages over BDB to RPM,
>>> which
>>> does not endanger or destabilize rpm, I do not see any reason to switch
>>> different DB.
>>>
>>>
>> BDB 5 is unmaintained. There's no one upstream working on it, since
>> Oracle has moved onto BDB 6. No one wants to use BDB 6. RPM should not
>> depend on dead software. And there are significant performance
>> advantages to LMDB, according to various benchmarks[1].And LMDB looks
>> like it could enable making the RPMDB to be more resilient[2].
>>
>> [1]: https://symas.com/products/lightning-memory-mapped-database/
>> project-benchmarks/
>> [2]: https://symas.com/products/lightning-memory-mapped-database/
>> feature-comparison/
>>
>>
> Lies, statistics, benchmarks, vendor benchmarks... ditto with feature
> comparisons.
>
That's rather quite controversial claims, care to back them up with some
references?

Myself persponally, I wasn't unable to find anything suggesting what you
claim, I would've expected to find there being any discussion on the
wikipedia article about it in such case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Memory-Mapped_Database

--
Regards,
Per Øyvind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20170126/6c43ba7a/attachment.html>