| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Elektrified X.org releasedElektrified X.org releasedPosted Dec 1, 2004 17:51 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)In reply to: Elektrified X.org released by evgeny Parent article: Elektrified X.org released
Who should keep the whole XML file in the memory?
Now what about caching those small changes?
(Log in to post comments)
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 1, 2004 20:22 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Who should keep the whole XML file in the memory?
1. Which is the "whole XML file"?
2. There is no need to keep the "whole XML" (whatever it means) in memory. There are alternative methods of parsing XML, e.g. SAX.
3. You probably should argue with another person anyway. My suggestion was to use an RDBMS, not XML file(s). I did say an XML-based DB (notice the word _database_ - I never meant plain XML files, especially not one huge file) could be used as well, in principle.
> Now what about caching those small changes?
Same here.
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 2, 2004 23:15 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] > > Who should keep the whole XML file in the memory?
Any software that needs to resolve IDs to nodes.
Elektrified X.org released Posted Dec 3, 2004 20:27 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > > > Who should keep the whole XML file in the memory?
> Any software that needs to resolve IDs to nodes.
So do you say the kernel keeps the whole inode table/whatever in memory? And why memory requirements are different than that for similar task for a filesystem?
|
|
||||||||||||