BerkeleyDB locking subsystem

Dirk Koopman djk at
Tue Aug 1 09:47:18 BST 2006

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 21:04 -0400, Matt Sergeant wrote:

> > The reason I'm
> > asking is that MySQL couldn't do the job.
> Sure it could, and has done in many places. You just can't blindly  
> insert data of that volume into storage and expect to have the  
> backend know beforehand "Oh, he's inserting gigs of data - we should  
> partition sensibly then". You have to do this stuff explicitly. I  
> don't know how BDB handles it, but I suspect it's similar.

Oh, and before I forget, remember that there are three backend storage
engines for MySQL: the standard (isam) based one (with known performance
issues on very large tables, especially indexes), InnoDB (quite a
serious database engine) and (guess what) Berkeley DB. 

And then, if memory serves, there is the SAP backend in MySQL MAXDB (but
I may just be misremembering this as something different).

But I suspect that you are storing (actually "caching") serialised perl
hashes in a simple key/value pair arrangement and don't really want the
overhead of a "database" as such. Bearing in mind the overhead in doing
the serialisation, personally I don't think that the storage engine much
to do other than swallow it gracefully and regurgitate on demand. 

Dealing with the swallowing (if that truly is the major activity) will
stress *any* storage engine because insertion tends to be one of the
slowest things you can do, especially if you wish to be ACID compliant.

As Matt says, you must have a plan...


More information about the mailing list