DBM::Deep 0.99_01 released

As some of you know, I've been working on Presto and, as the underlying engine, DBM::Deep. Tonight, I've released DBM::Deep 0.99_01. This is, as far as I know, the only Pureperl module that supports ACID transactions. (At least, I'm claiming that it supports ACID transactions. I would love failing tests that prove me wrong.) I will be releasing Presto 0.02 by this weekend to take advantage of the transactions.

I'm looking for people who're willing to really bang on this module quite thoroughly. I need lots and lots of failing tests.

Caveats:

Currently, this will only support 15 concurrent transactions. When 1.00 is released, the goal is to support an unlimited number of concurrent transactions.
A freespace manager is planned for 0.99_02. Transactions take a lot of filespace that is (currently) never recovered. So, plan on running optimize() frequently.
It's not blazingly fast. Yet. Correctness first, speed later. It will be much faster by 1.00.

To answer a few questions I know I'll be asked:

No, I haven't run any benchmarks against anything. That's for after correctness has been established.
Yes, it's better than Pixie because DBM::Deep is Perl data structures persisted to disk. No "magic cookies".
Yes, I understand that tie() is a 15% penalty off the top. This is also what tie() was meant for.
Yes, I understand that there's a lot of things DBM::Deep 0.99_01 is doing that could be done better, such as how CLEAR() is done. That's why it's not 1.00 yet.

If you find a bug, please open something against RT. Please please provide a failing test. If you don't provide a failing test and I can't figure out how to test it, it won't get fixed. Also, if you would like, please join the DBM::Deep mailing list and come visit us in #dbm-deep on irc.perl.org

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Comment on DBM::Deep 0.99_01 released

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: DBM::Deep 0.99_01 released by diotalevi (Canon) on Apr 28, 2006 at 04:15 UTC
I was recently using the version prior to this, had collected a 21MB database with around 5K hashes of 6 elements each. I found I was utterly unable to iterate over the values in the database after awhile and had to completely throw away my database. I was running out of memory on a machine with almost no load and 1GB of RAM! It would be good to include a program that can read your databases without requiring DBM::Deep for purposes of data recovery. I'm now very, very leery of ever using this database. It seems like a one-way trip. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]
Re^2: DBM::Deep 0.99_01 released by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Apr 28, 2006 at 13:11 UTC
Please provide me a test case for this. This would be a bug that I want to fix. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]
Re: DBM::Deep 0.99_01 released by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 28, 2006 at 06:08 UTC
The release appears to be missing a file? C:\Perl\packages\DBM-Deep-0.99_01>nmake test Microsoft (R) Program Maintenance Utility Version 7.00.9466 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. C:\Perl\bin\perl.exe "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harn +ess(0, 'blib\lib', 'blib\arch')" t\01_basic.t t\02_hash.t t\03_b t\01_basic...................Can't locate t/common.pm in @INC (@INC co +ntains: C:\Perl\packages\DBM-Deep-0.99_01\blib\lib C:\Perl\packa BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t\01_basic.t line 7. t\01_basic...................dubious Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) [SNIP lots more like that] [download] Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal? "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: DBM::Deep 0.99_01 released by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Apr 28, 2006 at 13:19 UTC
I've just uploaded 0.99_02 which fixes the MANIFEST issue. Thanks for pointing that out! My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]