Re: Re: portage performance

On Saturday 12 June 2004 05:02, Jerry McBride wrote:
>
> The main problem is this.... the portage database is a file system based
> mechanism. That is to say, when you update, search or otherwise use emerge,
> the program is busy as hell leafing through thousands of files looking for
> what you want..
>
> "Hashed", "indexed"??? Not even close....
>
> Portage is begging for a decent database engine and I pray it's sql
> based....
>
> The other hitch is that portage is written in an interpreted language,
> Python. Python is an excellent programming language, no doubt about it, but
> performance isn't one of it's highlights. Moving portage to C would be so
> much better....

Not really, believe me. Although there are parts of portage that should 
probably be written in c / c++ those are only a small part of all code.

The big problem (if you had looked into it) is that currently the only 
reliable way to read an ebuild is to invoke bash with the whole bagage 
of /usr/sbin/ebuild.sh. This is why I am so much against dynamic behaviour on 
the global level. It one breaks the cache, but also makes creating a parser 
(Currently ebuilds are not parsed by portage!!) so much harder.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [email protected]
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAyrAbbKx5DBjWFdsRAr8pAKCwZjlkSZlg4j7xXa9dsWxyP/YExQCgqeVl
wV+Go1lD+6pS8AeOFU0+kP0=
=0mlI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----