Brett> Well, it has always been that way for me, so I always assumed
Brett> test_bsddb3 was just a *really* long test.
Slow for me, but not nearly as bad as for you:
% time ./python.exe ../Lib/bsddb/test/test_all.py
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Only thing I can think of is that Berkeley DB 4.7 is a ton faster than
> 4.6 or I am running something differently than you:
My suspicion is that there is a bug somewhere, probably in Berkeley DB.
For example, it might acquire some lock with a timeout, hoping that
normally, the lock gets release
> real0m13.786s
test_bsddb3 takes about 30s real time on my system (Linux, with
Berkeley DB 4.6.21).
I don't think the default (of requiring the bsddb resource) can
change for 2.6; we already have released rc2, so there won't be
any further release candidates.
For 2.7, I would still be hesit
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Jesus Cea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Well, 'time' says the test takes 16.09 sec user and 16.09 sec system
>> on my MacBook, but a total execution time of almost 8 *minutes*. That
>> is too
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
> Well, 'time' says the test takes 16.09 sec user and 16.09 sec system
> on my MacBook, but a total execution time of almost 8 *minutes*. That
> is too long to be on by default.
Uh... That is very strange.
Under Solaris 10:
"
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Jesus Cea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Just installing 2.6rc2, I see that bsddb3 testsuite is disabled by default.
>
> Current testsuite is far more fast and stable that the old one (entire
> test: 17 seconds in my
On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
Current testsuite is far more fast and stable that the old one (entire
test: 17 seconds in my machine). I was wondering if it is time to
enable
bsddb3 testsuite by default.
Perhaps so. That certainly improves the chances of finding problems
e
On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
FWIW, many years ago in the past when I asked sleepycat about this
(long before oracle bought them) they said that python was considered
to be the application. Using berkeleydb via python for a commercial
application did not require a berkele
> I thought that all that was happening was that BSDDB was becoming a
> separate project. If one needs BSDDB with Python2.6, one installs it.
No, not in the way you mean it.
> Aren't there other parts of Python that require external modules, such as
> Tk?
It's different. BSDDB (the Sleepycat-th
>> Unfortunately this advice should have been taken several years
>> ago. The fact is that there are almost certainly Python users who
>> rely on the presence of the bsddb module for production work, and
>> simply removing it without deprecation is bound to upset those users.
G
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oleg Broytmann wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>>> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
>>> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
>> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
>
>I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember
now, but I clearly remember I
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> A stable fileformat is useful for long term support, but an evolving
>> format allows improvements.
>
> Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I thin
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning (for
>> example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and you
>> can do replic
Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> SQLite is public domain; the licensing terms of Berkeley DB[1] are not
>> friendly to commercial applications: "Our open source license ...
>> permits use of Berkeley DB in open source projects or
Kevin Teague wrote:
There can be subtle differences between a "stock" Python and the system
Python on Mac OS X 10.5.
Also there can be different versions of Python installed
in different versions of MacOSX. So if you distribute an app
that relies on the system Python, at the least you have
to
-On [20080905 12:34], Kevin Teague ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>However, all does not seem to be right with the bsddb module on the
>system Python 2.5 on Mac OS X 10.5:
>
> >>> import bsddb
[snip]
>ImportError: No module named _bsddb
The bsddb module is built separately from Python within FreeBSD
On Sep 4, 2008, at 8:10 AM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
I have to say I've never had problems with a stock install of Python
on
either Mac OS X or Windows (shockingly enough :). I think this is
good
advice for applications that rely on external libraries, but I just
don't see any problems with
-On [20080904 16:22], C. Titus Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I agree. I like bsddb for just this reason and I'd like to continue
>being able to use it! I think that there are many reasons why having
>such a thing in the stdlib is really useful and I also think it's worth
>exploring the ramifi
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>me> I suggested in another message (perhaps on another thread) that
>me> maybe a dbm.sqlite module would be worth having.
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue3783
I did a similar thing today. I can post my version later today.
-
me> I suggested in another message (perhaps on another thread) that
me> maybe a dbm.sqlite module would be worth having.
http://bugs.python.org/issue3783
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
>Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I think it was 2.2 to
> 2.3 upgrade - and all my bsddb databases stopped working. I cannot call
> this "improvement". I didn't have db_upgarde on that computer (or I didn't
> kn
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:03 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning
>> (for example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and
>> you can do replication and distributed transactions (useful, for
>> examp
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> SQLite is public domain; the licensing terms of Berkeley DB[1] are not
> friendly to commercial applications: "Our open source license ...
> permits use of Berkeley DB in open source projects or in applications
> that are
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:01:47PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
-> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
-> Hash: SHA1
->
-> C. Titus Brown wrote:
-> > Since I/we want to distribute pygr to end-users, this is really not a
-> > pleasant prospect. Also often the installation of Python itself goes
-> > much
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:25:43AM -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Yeah, but bsddb is one of those exploding batteries. I've used it for
> years, and have had lots and lots of problems with it. Having SQLite
> in there is great; now we need implementations of anydbm and shelve
> which use it.
What
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
> A stable fileformat is useful for long term support, but an evolving
> format allows improvements.
Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I think it was 2.2 to
2.3 upgrade - and all my bsddb databases stopped working. I canno
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
> -- SQLite is public domain; the licensing terms of Berkeley DB[1] are not
>friendly to commercial applications: "Our open source license ...
>permits use of Berkeley DB in open source projects or in applications
>tha
never mind about the limit... I was thinking SQL Express
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Jeff Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't SQLlite still have a 4gb cap?
>
> I'd personally prefer an open source solution (if that's Berkeley so be it
> but there's plenty out there... MySQL for one)
>
>
Doesn't SQLlite still have a 4gb cap?
I'd personally prefer an open source solution (if that's Berkeley so be it
but there's plenty out there... MySQL for one)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyth
> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning
> (for example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and
> you can do replication and distributed transactions (useful, for
> example, if your storage is bigger than a single machine capacity,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
C. Titus Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
> -> Brett Cannon wrote:
> -> >> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the pygr[0]
> -> >> mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable
> I have to say I've never had problems with a stock install of Python on
> either Mac OS X or Windows (shockingly enough :). I think this is good
I agree. I just use the stock Python on OS X and Windows. And it
seems to work well for my rather large and complicated (PIL, PyLucene,
Medusa, Repo
> I don't think the convenience of "batteries *included*" should be
> underestimated.
Yeah, but bsddb is one of those exploding batteries. I've used it for
years, and have had lots and lots of problems with it. Having SQLite
in there is great; now we need implementations of anydbm and shelve
whi
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:01:35AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote:
-> At 7:37 AM -0700 9/4/08, C. Titus Brown wrote:
-> >On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote:
-> ...
-> >-> Shipping an application to end users is a different problem. Such
packages
-> >-> should include a private
[C. Titus Brown]
I'm happy to be told that bsddb is too much of a maintenance burden for
Python 2.6/3.0 to have -- especially since it's gone from 3.0 now ;) --
but I don't think the arguments that *it won't matter that it's not
there* have been very credible.
Not credible, not widely discuss
At 7:37 AM -0700 9/4/08, C. Titus Brown wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote:
...
>-> Shipping an application to end users is a different problem. Such packages
>-> should include a private copy of Python as well as of any dependent
>-> libraries, as tested.
>
>Why?
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote:
-> At 6:10 AM -0500 9/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-> >>> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the
-> >>> pygr[0] mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable
-> >>> object store in Python?
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning (for
> example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and you
> can do replication and distributed transactions (useful, for example, if
> your storage is b
At 6:10 AM -0500 9/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the
>>> pygr[0] mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable
>>> object store in Python? We've been using bsddb, but is there an
>>> alternative? And what
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
-> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
-> Hash: SHA1
->
-> Brett Cannon wrote:
-> >> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the pygr[0]
-> >> mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable object store
-> >> i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the pygr[0]
>> mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable object store
>> in Python? We've been using bsddb, but is there an alternative? And
>> what if
>> Related but tangential question that we were discussing on the
>> pygr[0] mailing list -- what is the "official" word on a scalable
>> object store in Python? We've been using bsddb, but is there an
>> alternative? And what if bsddb is removed?
Brett> Beyond shelve there
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:56 PM, C. Titus Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 04:41:32PM -0700, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> -> I think this should be deferred to Py3.1.
> ->
> -> This decision was not widely discussed and
> -> I think it likely that some users will
> -> be surp
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Mark Hammond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS
>> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS
>> free environment...
>
> In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote:
| I see that some tests use os.unlink. They should use
| test_support.unlink() instead.
Old stuff. Fix just committed.
- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http:/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesus Cea wrote:
| Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS
| Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS
| free environment...
I will be out of the city, 100% offline, until monday/tuesday. I wil
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Mark Hammond wrote:
>
>>> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS
>>> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS
>>> free environment...
>>
>> In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of the form:
>>
>> | DBFileExi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Hammond wrote:
>> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS
>> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS
>> free environment...
>
> In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of the fo
> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS
> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS
> free environment...
In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of the form:
| DBFileExistsError: (17, 'File exists -- __fop_file_setup: Retry lim
51 matches
Mail list logo
