[Python-3000] [Python-Dev] Removing bsddb module from py3k (was Re: No beta2 tonight)
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:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > 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