Talk:Cdb (software)

Untitled[edit]

CDB is definitely "notable." It's a software product that is used widely and has bindings for many programming languages. It should probably be merged with Constant_Data_Base. ErikHaugen 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as shared library?[edit]

The article says: "Notably, the creator of cdb does not intend for cdb to be used as a shared library." I can't find a reference to this, and find it very unlikely. Also, there exists a debian package: "libcdb1 - shared library for constant databases (cdb)" Can somebody clarify this? It's possible that the author meant to say that the library is not designed to share the database: no concurrent access, or only access from a single process at a time.--Jwillem (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://cr.yp.to/cdb.html states "Packages that need to read cdb files should incorporate the necessary portions of the cdb library rather than relying on an external cdb library." DJB himself copies the CDB source into his other programs. What distro maintainers do is their business; the author's intentions are clear, and the article is correct as written. Delta407 (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit[edit]

Request for update to External Links to include

mcdb cdb fork supporting databases > 4 GB; thread-safe; bindings for Perl, Python, Lua, and Ruby

Relevance to Cdb_(software): mcdb is based on ideas in cdb, but mcdb was written to address various scaling limitations of cdb, notably 4 GB and thread-safety. It should be noted that cdb was written for single CPU machines when hard drives were < 200 MB in size, not multi-core machines with 2+ TB disks, so the fact that cdb scales up to 4 GB is impressive. However, today's data sets can be very large and fast data access in multi-core, threaded environments is in demand, hence the motivation behind mcdb. Gstrauss-wiki (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article.
The article already had too many links to individual implementations, which have been removed. Generally speaking, articles on a concept don't need links to all implementations or forks of that concept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade: Thanks for the quick response for edit assistance! While I agree with your comment about concepts, I would like to also add the perspective that software, like Wikipedia articles, is more vibrant with an active community. Actively maintained software is probably more valuable than historical snapshots to a fair portion of users who will search for this Wikipedia page. As such, I hope I can convince you that links to the additional implementations have value as additional references in an appropriate section of the article. Cheers. Gstrauss-wiki (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)gstrauss-wiki[reply]