[MUD-Dev] Re: Databases: was Re: skill system

s001gmu at nova.wright.edu s001gmu at nova.wright.edu
Tue Jun 16 13:58:35 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:46:20 -0400 (EDT) 
> s001gmu <s001gmu at nova.wright.edu> wrote:
> 
> > We're working on using either CQL++ (if they will ever get back to
> > me!  grumble) or mSQL for our DB back end.  
> 
> I haven't confirmed this, but I've read several reports that both
> MySQL and mSQL both have performance/scalability problems with large
> databases.  You may want to investigate this area.

Can you point me at any particular sites/sources?  I've dinked around with
it a bit, and it seems spiffy, for smaller-medium sized stuff, but I've
not really put it through it's paces.
 
> > Did they write anything about the MUSH DB expiriement, btw?  I'd
> > love to get my hands on any documents they produced.
> 
> I've only read references to it.  I suspect that all the real
> discussion occurred on Marcus Ranum's Wizard list, which was in many
> ways the equivalent of MUD-Dev 10 years ago (and sadly seems to be
> last as far as archives are concerned).
  ^^^^ - lost?
fooey
 
> > JC uses an OO DB, but not a pre-packaged one, if I recall.  There
> > has been a lot of discussion about OO DBs in the past, and some
> > minor discussion about RDBs.
> 
> My current implementation uses a linear TDBM descendant.  In moving
> towards more of a persistent store model I've gone towards Persist++
> and Texas munged into my prior TDBM-like model (and have ended up with
> a right load of bollocks, if a set of interesting proof cases).  

*blink blink*  auf english, bitte?  my DB terminology stops right about
where I stopped writing in my post... ;)

-Greg





More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list