[Newbies] Pre-Getting started info: Unicode, utf8, large
pdebruic at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 20:19:19 UTC 2010
I think you might benefit from looking at Gemstone, especially the
free version. You haven't mentioned the total size of your
planned DB, but up to 4GB is free. After that you pay but its
sufficient to prove what you're doing. They seem to have the features
you're looking for.
for their free version.
They have a mailing list here:
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:26:41 -0700
> From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Newbies] Pre-Getting started info: Unicode, utf8, large
> memory need
> To: "A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic questions
> about Squeak." <beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Message-ID: <4BD9CF61.1050101 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> On 04/28/2010 09:31 PM, Herbert König wrote:
> > Hi Charles,
> > seems you are on top of things. So just a few remarks. My experience
> > is from Squeak 3.8 so you should check if what I say holds true for
> > current Squeak.
> > Check out the UTF8 speed. I combine tab delimited files from
> > disparate sources into more complex objects and write out new
> > files. First thing was to change to non UTF8 for speed reasons.
> > Seems you can't do this.
> I'm not worried about speed for this first part, and for the
> follow-up I'm more worried about computational speed than utf8
> reading speed. If I can't depend on virtual memory and automatic
> roll-in/out (nobody seems to offer that!) then it means LOTS of
> database interaction. Which is where I get worried about Magma...as
> apparently it holds a partial reference to everything in RAM.
> > CH> I looked at Magma, and couldn't figure out whether it would be
> > CH> useful or not. I've no idea just how fast it is, how capacious
> > CH> it is, or how much
> > Chris Muller is on Squeak dev and I'm sure he will be able to tell
> > you if you would hit the limits of Magma. Gjallar (www.Gjallar.se)
> > uses Magma in a commercial project (last time I looked).
> > CH> ahead of time. And I want locally separate files, so I guess
> > CH> I'd probably use sqlite or Firebird. With Sqlite I might need
> > CH> to have multiple databases to handle the final system, so it
> > CH> would probably be best to partition things early. (Either that
> > CH> or build some sort of hierarchical storage system that rolled
> > CH> things from database to database depending of how recently it
> > CH> was accessed.)
> > SqueakDbx or (openDbx in other languages) might be of interest. I
> > use mysql from Squeak in a commercial setting, no problems.
> That is of interest, but MySql is in the same boat as PostGreSQL with
> having a system level database rather and separate database files.
> This makes many of the uses that I intend problematical...and
> difficult at best. Both Firebird and Sqlite, however, allow
> specified db files. Sqlite is more common, so that's probably what
> I'll choose, even though Firebird has a reputation for being more
> efficient. (However I think both are supported by openDbx, so
> probably also by SqueakDbx.)
> > CH> I'm guessing that FileStream would handle file BOM markers
> > CH> gracefully. (Most of my files are utf8 with BOM markers at the
> > CH> head.) This isn't
> > Just try it to be sure..
> Yeah, that will be a part of the first test.
> > CH> (I wouldn't need any fancy mapper. If I weren't dealing with
> > CH> LOTS of variable length arrays of variable length strings, I
> > CH> could just fit the data into a simple C struct without any
> > CH> pointers whatsoever. So all I need is to be able to save a
> > CH> list of lists of chars, plus a few integers that would all fit
> > CH> comfortably into 32 bits. [Many of them would fit into 8
> > CH> bits.])
> > CouchDB has caught my attention for inhomogeneous data, scalability,
> > language and I like JSON (available in Squeak). At least look at
> > map reduce algorithm for being able to utilize multi-core or
> > multiple boxes. Whatever language you choose.
> Multiple boxes isn't particularly interesting, but I'm expecting the
> number of cores/box to ramp up quickly over the next decade...and
> that *is* interesting.
> > CH> later, and D doesn't have much in the way of concurrency
> > CH> handling. I'm not sure that Hydra counts...though it sounds
> > CH> like I need to look into it. The question would be how to
> > CH> programs running on separate virtual machines communicate with
> > CH> each other.
> > Two different issues, Hydra addresses one single machine and does
> > not support current Squeak (recent discussion on Squeak dev). The
> > other issue is communicating via network. This is where you'll end
> > up.
> I don't expect to end up "communicating via network", except,
> perhaps, via localhost. But I do expect to end up running several
> processes, probably on different cores. This causes many, but not
> all, of the same problems. (Current support is less important, as
> this is something a bit off in the future. But it needs to be
> planned for now, before I start writing the code.) Guess I'll see if
> I can find that "Squeak dev" discussion. Perhaps Dbus is the correct
> answer...I've only skimmed over its specs, but it looks plausible.
> (Getting info back from separate processes seems a major problem with
> most of the approaches. It may well turn out that TCP over
> UnixSockets is the best approach available..though I *would* like
> something better.)
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> End of Beginners Digest, Vol 48, Issue 34
More information about the Beginners