[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Antw: LMDB database size

--On Monday, January 27, 2014 8:50 AM +0100 Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:

"Markus Doppelbauer" <doppelbauer@gmx.net> schrieb am 25.01.2014 um
16:04 in

We are using BerkeleyDB since a decade - but we are searching for
something more lightweight. LMDB is what we are looking for ...  ^^

??? More lightweight? Last time I used Sleepycat DB, the extra size for
the binary was about 1MB...

The overhead being discussed is not the size of the binary, but the "heavy" weight of the BDB code (locks, etc) that one has to deal with with BDB databases. If you paid much attention to the list and published benchmarks, however, you'd actually already be aware of this. BDB imposes a substantial overhead penalty compared to LMDB.



Quanah Gibson-Mount
Architect - Server
Zimbra, Inc.
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration