Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Known issue with index sizes in sqlightning #5

Closed
maxwell-k opened this issue Dec 6, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed

Known issue with index sizes in sqlightning #5

maxwell-k opened this issue Dec 6, 2019 · 3 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@maxwell-k
Copy link
Collaborator

See LMDB/sqlightning#1
@maxwell-k maxwell-k added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 9, 2019
@danshearer
Copy link
Member

This part of the ongoing discussion about where to intercept SQLite APIs. We should be at a high enough level so that the fix for this (probably chained keys as hyc said in the bug report referenced above) applies to all storage backends. That suggests higher up the stack than where libkv would go.

@danshearer
Copy link
Member

The backend abstraction layer design so far provides large key support for the backends that need it (eg LMDB does but RocksDB does not.)

@danshearer
Copy link
Member

Not a bug. Moved to https://lumosql.org/src/lumosql/wiki?name=lumosql-storage-api . It isn't a bug because we are implementing generic key handling in the storage API, and that also involves some sensitivity into the different ways MVCC is implemented by various K-V stores.

@LumoSQL LumoSQL locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 9, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@danshearer @maxwell-k