David Masover wrote:
> On Sunday 27 July 2008 00:07:10 Greg Willits wrote:

>> > Another possibility would be to use something like ActiveRecord -- 
>> 
>> Using the db especially through AR would be glacial. We have a db-based 
>> process now, and need something faster.
> 
> I specifically mean something already designed for this purpose -- not
> necessarily a traditional database. Something like berkdb, or "stone" (I
> think that's what it was called) -- or splitting it into a bunch of 
> files, on a decent filesystem.

Berkely DB has been sucked up by Oracle, and I don't think it ever ran 
on OS X anyway.

We have talked about skipping Marshaling and going straight to standard 
text files on disk and then using read commands that point to a specific 
file line.

We haven't spiked that yet, but I don't see it being significantly 
faster than using a local db (especially since db cache might be 
useful), but it's something we'll probably at least investigate just to 
prove it's comparative performance. It might be faster just because we 
can keep all indexes in RAM. Get some 15,000 rpm drives, probably 
implement some caching to reduce disk reads

So, yeah, maybe that or even sqlite might be suitable if the RAM thing 
just gets too obnoxious to solve. Something that would prove to be 
faster than MySQL.

-- gw

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.