Re: [Tracker] FTS4 branch review

On 15/02/13 10:45, JÃrg Billeter wrote:
Hi Martyn,


thanks for testing this.

No problem.

On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 19:29 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
Test B (FTS4)

-rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn  25M Feb 14 18:33 meta.db
-rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn 1.5M Feb 14 18:34 meta.db-wal

Test B (0.14.5)

-rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn  24M Feb 14 18:49 meta.db
-rw-r--r-- 1 martyn martyn 9.8M Feb 14 18:53 meta.db-wal


For Test B, the database size for Tracker with FTS4 is much smaller. So

The size of the WAL journal is not directly related to the database
size. The main database file is nearly the same size, though, so the new
setting doesn't appear to have had a big impact in this test.

Indeed. I did wonder why the WAL journal was different though.

while we might be indexing more words (i.e. those which are smaller than
3 characters), we're still a smaller database. The reason for this could
be that we were previously duplicating data (Carlos can confirm this)
and now we're using the data only once. Either way, a smaller database
is always preferred if we can have it.

We weren't duplicating data before either. Upstream fts3 was, but
getting rid of that duplication was one of the major reasons to use our
own version of fts3.

Yea, I checked this with Carlos this morning because I wasn't sure. Thanks for confirming. He said the same thing.

Carlos did note not seeing so much of a difference in his tests, but I would imagine it scales with more data.

Thanks JÃrg,


Founder and CEO of Lanedo GmbH.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]