[Scons-users] Is dblite always the preferred choice for dbm_module?

[Bill Deegan]

Andrew,

As it happens I've been nose deep in dblite.py among other internals of
SCons this weekend.

I'm not aware of anyone switching the implementation.
Note that dblite is actually using pickle'ing.

The SCons.SConsign module has explicit calls to pickle, so I'm guessing it
would take some work to swap in an alternative sconsign store.

The current implementation loads the entire contents of the store, rather
than loading each target's info ad hoc.

I'd seen some posts that json was faster than pickle, and perhaps that
would be a reasonable alternative as tooling around json would be simple.

-Bill

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Andrew C. Morrow <andrew.c.morrow at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> Hi -
>
> The SConsignFile function takes a dbm_module argument that is used to
> select an implementation for the database. The default is "dblite", which
> appears to be the default because it works on all python versions.
>
> For environments where a more modern Python is already universal, is it
> advantageous to select some other backing module, like 'anydbm'? Are there
> any known performance differences between dblite and the true DBM
> implementations?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20170227/bab85d79/attachment.html>