[pacman-dev] Fast binary database

[Xavier]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:32:23PM +0100, JJDaNiMoTh wrote:
> [danimoth at jane src]$time ./sarcina -o `which vim`
> /usr/bin/vim is owned by vim
> 
> real    0m0.127s
> user    0m0.040s
> sys     0m0.037s
> 
> [danimoth at jane src]$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.