Re: globals versus Berkeley DB comparison

Denver Braughler wrote:
> Kevin O'Kane wrote:
>
> > Denver Braughler wrote:
> >
> > >       set $P(x,"x",10)="x" ;smaller node size
> > >       set t1=$h
> > >       for i=1:1:1E7 do  ;more nodes
> > >       . set k1=$r(10000)
> > >       . set k2=$r(100000) ;larger key space to reduce collisions
> > >       . set k3=$r(100000)
> > >       . set k4=$r(100000)
> > >       . set ^a(k1,k2,k3,k4)=x
> >
> > I changed each of the $r() args to 100,000 and got essentially
> > the same results:  4.5 sec/iteration for the BDB and 1.8 for
> > the native globals.
> > Then, I changed the length of "x" to 10 from 1000 and got
> > 1.1 seconds with the native globals but a surprizing 1.4
> > seconds with the BDB.  This would seem to indicate that the
> > BDB is not adept at managing longer stored data items.

> I don't understand why the times decreased with the longer x 
> for both databases.
>
> Did you keep the number of global sets at 1E7?

no, the times decreased with the shorter "x".  the size of the
decrease in the BDB was surprizing while the modest decrease
in the native globals was about as expected.
the for loop limit was set to 10,000.

--
Kevin C. O'Kane,
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0507
(319) 273 7322 (Office + Voice Mail)
http://www.cs.uni.edu/~okane
[EMAIL PROTECTED]