From: Andreas Pokorny (andreas.pokorny_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-29 01:57:36
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 10:50:51PM +0100, Calum Grant <calum_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andreas Pokorny
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:24:24PM +0100, Calum Grant
> > <calum_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > Is there any interest in providing relational containers in Boost?
> > > Are there any features/improvements you can suggest for RML?
> > You could compare the library with sqlite.
> Completely different. Most database engines are controlled via text
> strings, and require parsing and data transformation. This cuts all
> that out using C++ templates, and is therefore way faster. It's a
Oh, sorry my request was not formulated clearly enough. I wanted to see
how rml performs compared to sqlite in a benchmark. Sqlite is currently
a nice and fast solution if you do not need a remote database. Rml could
be an even better solution, if you do not require a text sql interface,
provided that there are table types available in rml, which work without
being fully loaded to memory.
> > Furthermore you could implement a table that can be stored in
> > a file, and used wihout reading all records into memory.
> I think the memory-mapped file route would be the most profitable, it
> would probably already work.
Interesting, could you give a short overview, how it could already work.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk