Re: Two questions about medusa

[Biswapesh Chattopadhyay <biswapesh_chatterjee tcscal co in>]

> On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 23:50, snickell stanford edu wrote:
> > > Also, Medusa use DB1.  It might be time to consider a newer version
> > > that
> > > offers better storage and retrieval methods.  I had to make a
> > > symbolic
> > > link to get Medusa to compile after I upgraded to Redhat 9.
> >
> > I'm considering moving medusa to SQLite, possibly accessed through
> > GNOME-DB (in the hopes that eventually we could build a networkable
> > searching service that could also search NFS mounts and such). The
> > posted specs/stats on SQLite look good, and it seems to work as
> > advertised. Once I've graduated I hope to have time to test it more
> > thoroughly.
> 
> SQLite does look good. It would easier to use it make ranking work using
> something that follows relational rules.

>From my experience with using SQLite in my project (Sourcebase), where I
converted some pretty hairy DB1 code to SQLite, I'd recommend it
*stongly* for any non-trivial DB work.

Comparison with berkeley DB:

1. It is uncopyrighted free software (beer + speech). That is an
extremely liberal licence.
2. Is is very small (code and footprint wise).
3. It supports transactions, SQL92, multiple indexes on tables,
triggers, user-defined functions and other goodies.
4. It is very fast and stable.
5. It has an active development team and user base.
6. Code using SQLite is typically much smaller (upto 70% IME), simpler
and more understandable than equivalent (DB[1-4]) client code.
7. Supports all common platforms (UNIX, Linux, Windows, etc.)
8. No dependencies.

Rgds,
Biswa.