Hi Warren,
that's exactly the case... the moment you get 2 clients writing in the same
file at the same time, whatever you do, it eventually scales to using
something like mysql....
thanks a lot !!!!
dimitris
2007/3/21, Warren Young <mysqlpp@stripped>:
>
> Dimitris Servis wrote:
> > and as it turns out probably not a MySQL++ issue
>
> You'd have exactly the same problem using the C API.
>
> > best thing would be to store the whole table as a blob
>
> Oh, barf! You're completely ceding the special benefits of a SQL
> database server if you do that.
>
> If you just need network access, put the current binary file on a file
> share somewhere. If that won't work for you, write a dedicated row
> access server -- think of a very lightweight, flat-file database here.
> You can do it in a few hundred lines of C. Either way, you get rid of
> the MySQL overhead, you can still access rows directly, and it's
> maximally fast.
>
> But, only do that if this is read-only. Once you start writing to the
> file at the same time as other programs are reading, you'll just end up
> reinventing MySQL. If you're in that situation, I'd just look at
> something more lightweight...Berkeley DB, or SQLite, for example. Don't
> reinvent this wheel...this is a problem very nearly as old as computers
> themselves.
>
> --
> MySQL++ Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus?unsub=1
>
>
