hurikhan's suggestion makes good sense.
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Oct 17 2019
May 25 2019
Had planned to release LMDB 1.0 this summer, but I've been a bit too busy with other things to get all the feature branches merged. Sadly, I would advise you not to hold your breath.
Apr 11 2019
In T9805#181577, @bruns wrote:In T9805#181576, @hyc wrote:The MDB_val for the data contains a size. Divide by the size of a single DUPFIXED item to get the number of items returned in that page.
Yes, makes sense. For put, the second MDB_val is required as the fixed val size is not known to LMDB until the first put?
In T9805#181560, @bruns wrote:In T9805#181517, @hyc wrote:Fwiw, @poboiko is correct here.
In T9805#181157, @poboiko wrote:Just because you hide the RMW, it does not mean it does not happen. For LMDB, duplicate keys are just a plain array, see e.g. MDB_APPENDDUP in http://www.lmdb.tech/doc/group__mdb.html#ga4fa8573d9236d54687c61827ebf8cac0
Nothing on that link implies use of an array anywhere.
MDB_GET_MULTIPLE returns "up to a page of duplicate data items from current cursor position", so apparently the values for DUPFIXED are packed, or is the page created during the mdb_cursor_get call?
Apr 10 2019
Fwiw, @poboiko is correct here.