Prev: regarding /proc/pid/status output
Next: interposing library calls - general development
From: Steven Woody on 26 Jun 2008 01:40
Hi,

I am considering using a Unix DBM in my project, which is a
application in embedded Linux. Would you give me suggesion about
choice gdbm or berkeley DB?

Another more important, is there any C++ interface for these dbm's?
Thanks.

From: Christof Meerwald on 26 Jun 2008 12:34
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), Steven Woody wrote:
> I am considering using a Unix DBM in my project, which is a
> application in embedded Linux. Would you give me suggesion about
> choice gdbm or berkeley DB?

By default, I would go with SQLite (http://www.sqlite.org) - I think there
are several C++ interfaces for SQLite available.

Do you have any special requirements why you would think that gdbm or
berkeley DB might be preferable?

Also note that all of these libraries have different license implications.


Christof

--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
From: Raxit on 30 Jun 2008 07:14

Hi,

I think if possible dont go with legacy...

-Raxit
On Jun 26, 10:40 am, Steven Woody <narkewo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am considering using a Unix DBM in my project, which is a
> application in embedded Linux.  Would you give me suggesion about
> choice gdbm or berkeley DB?
>
> Another more important, is there any C++ interface for these dbm's?
> Thanks.

From: Steven Woody on 30 Jun 2008 21:36
On Jun 27, 12:34 am, Christof Meerwald <NOSPAM-seeMySig
+us...(a)usenet.cmeerw.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:40:03 -0700 (PDT), Steven Woody wrote:
> > I am considering using a Unix DBM in my project, which is a
> > application in embedded Linux. Would you give me suggesion about
> > choicegdbmor berkeley DB?
>
> By default, I would go with SQLite (http://www.sqlite.org) - I think there
> are severalC++interfaces for SQLite available.
>
> Do you have any special requirements why you would think thatgdbmor
> berkeley DB might be preferable?
>
> Also note that all of these libraries have different license implications.
>
> Christof
>
> --http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
> mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org

Hi,

I am also considering SQLite as you said. But I am afraid that SQLite
is not as lightweight as gdbm/udb/bde, doesn't it? And, I only need
to store/retrieve/delete some simple data, so I thought I should not
go bother with SQL-Language. Any opinion?
From: Christof Meerwald on 8 Jul 2008 16:32
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:36:09 -0700 (PDT), Steven Woody wrote:
> On Jun 27, 12:34 am, Christof Meerwald <NOSPAM-seeMySig
> +us...(a)usenet.cmeerw.org> wrote:
>> By default, I would go with SQLite (http://www.sqlite.org) - I think there
>> are severalC++interfaces for SQLite available.
> I am also considering SQLite as you said. But I am afraid that SQLite
> is not as lightweight as gdbm/udb/bde, doesn't it? And, I only need
> to store/retrieve/delete some simple data, so I thought I should not
> go bother with SQL-Language. Any opinion?

Looking just at the shared library sizes on my Linux box, SQLite is more
lightweight than Berkeley DB 4.x (of course, gdbm is much more lightweight
than both others).

If you are extremely worried about performance (particularly update
performance with data integrity) then go with Berkeley DB. If SQLite is
leightweight enough for you, then go with SQLite as it is by far the most
convenient option (the SQL shell is very convenient for debugging etc. and
the database file format is quite stable across versions).


Christof

--
http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: regarding /proc/pid/status output
Next: interposing library calls - general development