Re: RFC: Constant Database Support

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20100320161206.GA7391%britannica.bec.de@localhost>,
Joerg Sonnenberger  <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 08:19:39AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> Any reason you didn't consider implementing CBR as a backend for the
>db in libc?  
>
>The dbopen(3) API can be provided on top of CDB, but it doesn't fit too
>well with many of use cases e.g. in libc. The services(5) database is a
>good example. There are multiple keys for entry and the db
>implementation essentially emulated this by using an aritifical key for
>the main entry and doing a double lookup for all keys. As the keys are
>part of the data, the overall disk space usage is essentially doubled.

Well, I don't see the difference really. Most of the entry points are
the same, no?

christos