Re: [Tracker] Updating our FTS Version

[Jamie McCracken <jamie mccrack googlemail com>]

On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 17:07 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Jamie, this week we realised that QDBM is really taking a lot of time 
> and is now the most prominent thing to fix to get some speed increase in 
> all areas. Couple this with the fact that we will be trying to move to 
> vstore shortly and FTS right after that, I wanted to have a peek and see 
> what is needed to get FTS going.
>
> First I thought I would check the code out you started and compare it to 
> SQLite's FTS3 version to see what changed. I noticed they have made 
> quite some changes, but mostly code white space updates.
>
> I have included in this email a patch with those (mostly white space 
> changes) which we could apply to our version so you can see the real 
> differences which need more care and attention. Those real differences 
> are attached in the two extra patches which diff the hash file and the 
> fts file.
>
> Are you happy for me to commit the update patch?

AFAICT it looks ok so please commit

> Does it look like it is worth updating our FTS support from the upstream 
> changes in SQLite?

Not especially - see:
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/rlog?f=sqlite/ext/fts3/fts3.c

I believe version in our source is from 1.21 so not a lot has changed there

jamie


> _______________________________________________
> tracker-list mailing list
> tracker-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list