On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:32:23PM +0100, JJDaNiMoTh wrote:

[danimoth@jane src]$time ./sarcina -o `which vim` /usr/bin/vim is owned by vim

real 0m0.127s user 0m0.040s sys 0m0.037s

[danimoth@jane src]$time pacman -Qo `which vim` /usr/bin/vim è contenuto in vim 7.1.156-1

real 1m58.891s user 0m42.174s sys 0m7.100s

Ok, the pacman in [core] is bugged; whit the git version, I have 40 sec (without cache).

40 sec VS 0.1 sec ... It's a GOOD starting point.

I first made this comparison too, that's why I tried to investigate what was the hotpoint in the current -Qo code. See http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-November/010277.html So the above comparison isn't fair, and the difference isn't explained by the backends. Still, sarcina backend indeed seems to be an improvement, but is it worth it? The advantages of the text backend were explained earlier this month, following your SQL structure proposal : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-November/009938.html However, sarcina can probably help as a reference, to see if it's possible to come close to its speed while keeping a text backend. Firstly, the text backend itself can be changed. And secondly, the backend isn't everything, as my -Qo optimization shows. In any cases, it's an interesting experiment.