[rucksack-devel] rucksack performance

[Cyrus Harmon]

Well, one other way that this could be faster (to do the indexing in  
bulk at the end) is that you would only need to lock the index once,  
rather than once per object. But since rucksack doesn't lock the  
btree yet (at least not according to the comment at the top of p- 
btrees.lisp), this probably isn't an issue, but it could be as  
rucksack acquires btree locking facilities.

On Jan 12, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Arthur Lemmens wrote:

> Cyrus Harmon wrote:
>
>> I guess performance is the only issue I can think of. Yes, you have
>> to pay the cost of indexing either way, but, at least in many
>> systems, it can be faster to do a bunch of "inserts" and then index
>> the table, using rdbms-speak. It's not so much an issue of debugging
>> performance problems, as working around the performance bottleneck of
>> inserting into an index. I guess in an ideal world we wouldn't need
>> to disable indexing during a bulk creation phase.
>
> I don't see why that would be any faster in Rucksack.  As far as I can
> see you just move the indexing work to a later stage, but I don't  
> think
> you optimize it.  But maybe I'm missing something.
>
> Arthur
>
>