On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:05, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@...> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Bruno Friedmann <bruno@...> wrote:
On Wednesday 17 September 2014 17.27:26 Claudio Freire wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...> wrote: >>> Regards, >>> Stefan >> >> According to >> /usr/lib/rpm/rpmdb_stat -d /var/lib/rpm/Packages >> the hash has 19 buckets, and the database contains 3042 keys. Thus every >> bucket has 150 elements average. I doubt this hash has better access times >> than a BTree ... >> >> The disk access pattern is horrible, see the attached graphic ... > > This seems to confirm what you said above and that hash function seems > to be good :) It looks like it cycles through hash buckets on linear > scan.
Or it could be that it's scanning the hash index sequentially but accessing something else in tandem with a join, and that's random.
Ok, I reproduced it with a test python script, it's a bsddb3 thing.
Um... should I put all this instead on a BNC?
I would say yes, stored for long term memory
Done.
# 897353
WONTFIX right out of the bat.
I guess nobody cares enough for it.
Do you have any possibility to contact rpm-upstream with the issue, and give them the (here) gathered info? Thanks for the work, btw. - Yamaban. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org