Re: LPMOO Questions

• Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:34:58 PST
• From:
  "C. Regis Wilson" <t_pascal@oxy.edu>
• cc: moo-cows.PARC@xerox.com

>> > Binary DBs (Which LPMOO uses) are much larger because of their nature.
>> 
>> What of their nature makes them bigger?  I think that LPMOO should do a
>> good job of making smaller and better binary databases, even though it
>> does not.  If someone can explain to me why they are so much bigger I'd
>> appreciate it.
>
>They don't bother to pack data on disk or in mem, and their 
>representations of data structures and the like are more bloated than 
>those which MOO has (actually, its more probable that its bloated simply 
>because its emulating MOO).
>
I would say it's because they are not minimal dbs.  Or, at least,
they are only partly minimal, or "less" minimal than other dbs (which
aren't binary).  And everyone knows that binary dbs are more bloated
since the bits to ones-and-zeros ratio is higher.

>I'm not sure if MOO does packing either, although I know cold packs data 
>on disk.
>
I know there are certain programs that pack fudge on the hard disk.
----------
T. Pascal, King of Pascal    |
4527 Avocado St.             |  "You suck, big bag of cheese."
Los Angeles, CA 90027        |                 -Me
ZenMOO creator and maintainer|
      t_pascal@{{[[cheshire.,bobcat.,bengal.,cougar.],[[cub.,blackcat.,
  cheetah.]math.]]oxy.edu},{[pc4.,pc5-1.,pc3--1.,cub.,zenmoo.]zennet.com}}

• Prev: Re: LPMOO Questions
• Next: MachTen compilation
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows