Small (un-representative) benchmark on sqlite with blobs

[Jens Dagerbo]

On 6/25/07, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 25.06.07 13:20:55, Roberto Raggi wrote:
> > Il giorno 25/giu/07, alle ore 12:43, Andreas Pakulat ha scritto:
> > > On 25.06.07 10:49:37, Roberto Raggi wrote:
> > >
> > > Nobody said we're going to store the data in a relational schema.
> > > David
> > > mentioned something like 2 Map-like tables. So the SQL-statements are
> > > surely no problem. The real data will be stored as Blob, which is the
> > > whole reason I did this experiment.
> >
> > interesting.. so why SQL? you can pretty much use everything else for
> > that.
>
> As I already said: David had a couple of problems with the BerkleyDB in
> KDevelop3. I don't care wether we use SQL or some binary database,
> except that for SQL we already have pretty much everything in place
> (high-level API, sqlite plugin that is almost always built for QT,
>

But.. in KDev3 the database was actually used for queries.. if you are
saying it should all go into a blob, why not simply use a file on
disk? What does the the database give you at all in this case?

And while on topic.. all data in one blob?? You're only interested in
persistence here? It seems to suggest that you will have all of the
data (duchain, whatever) in memory during normal operation, but surely
that will use up way too much memory? KDev3 kept (and persisted) only
the project PCS in memory, and used bdb for lookups against external
libraries. This to keep the memory usage down. (And with large
projects, this was a bit too heavy too.)

// jens