From: Rosenberg, E. <eri...@ng...> - 2006-01-16 21:09:47
|
Kevin, =20 Thanks for such a quick response. The main reason I was trying to avoid = committing was because committing seems to be relatively slow. If I = disable transactions will things be written to disk immediately? Will = this writing be faster then a commit? Eric =20 ________________________________ From: Kevin Day [mailto:ke...@tr...]=20 Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:02 PM To: Rosenberg, Eric Subject: re: [Jdbm-general] Transaction memory size =20 Eric- =20 This is a limitation in the current jdbm transaction manager (there is a = group of us working on an alternate technique that will support = arbitrarily large transactions, but that's a long way off). =20 The recommended approach at this point is to either: =20 A. Commit your transactions periodically =20 or =20 B. Run with transcations disabled for large inserts (understand that = this will open you up to potential file corruption, so you only want to = run without transactions when it is OK to lose the entire database - = i.e. during initial data population). =20 =20 Cheers, =20 - Kevin =20 =20 =20 > If I add / update a bunch of objects in JDBM during a transaction is everything kept in memory until I do a commit? I am trying to add an arbitrary number of objects to JDBM and am wondering if it is safe to add them all from a single transaction or if I need to commit periodically to ensure that I don't run out of memory. Thanks, Eric ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log = files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=C0ick = <http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id%16865&op=C0ick>=20 _______________________________________________ Jdbm-general mailing list Jdb...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jdbm-general < =20 |