[Python-3000] [Python-Dev] Removing bsddb module from py3k (was Re: No beta2 tonight)

Charles Hixson charleshixsn at earthlink.net
Sun Jul 20 20:00:12 CEST 2008

On Sunday 20 July 2008 10:24:56 am Josiah Carlson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea.es> wrote:
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Josiah Carlson wrote:
> > | On-disk key -> value dictionary.  In every use of bsddb that I've seen
> > | (or done myself), that's been the extent of it's use.  That's what I
> > | *was* offering.  But it seems that everyone has had experience with
> > | bsddb on a far deeper level (beyond dictionary + cursor access), and
> > | would find (like you) absolutely no use in an on-disk dictionary with
> > | a sqlite backend (which hasn't had the same maintenance issues as
> > | bsddb), which is why I withdrew the offer.
> >
> > For such a simple application, you can use the already in stdlib "gdbm"
> > module. Just remember it is not transactional, so beware diskfulls,
> > application crashes, etc.
> But sqlite is transactional, can offer cursors, getrange, etc., etc.
> I'm still curious as to what deep features people are using in bsddb.
> Anyone have any pointers to open source software?
>  - Josiah
> _
FWIW, when I use bsddb it's because all I want is a B+Tree.  I often 
explicitly DON'T want to use SQL.  The "deep feature" is simplicity.  The 
only feature I want it to have that it doesn't is the ability to use integers 
as keys.  I can handle that, but the extra layer of processing bothers me.

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list