XML size (was: no subject)

Derek Atkins warlord@MIT.EDU
02 Apr 2002 14:30:17 -0500

lmb <lars@marowsky-bree.de> writes:

> > I think finding an embedded sql system would be a great approach,
> > provided the database is portable.
> This will not solve the size / speed issues with the XML format I think. (To
> put it mildly)

Are you sure?  I'm not.  Just the fact that XML bloats your data
objects with ASCII tags is going to imply a HUGE overhead.  It
certainly added an order of magnitude over the old binary format.
OTOH, I admit that I don't know how much overhead you will get from,
say, mysqld, but the fact that you don't have to convert everything to
ascii, and the fact that you don't need to use ascii tags for every
data entry, imply (to me) that the DB file will be smaller.

Another benefit of using a database instead of XML is that you don't
need to read the whole database into memory.  With XML Gnucash must
load the data file completely into core, perform all its accesses in
core, and then write out new XML.  With an embedded database you get
the benefits of SQL searches without the complexity of administrating
a SQL database server.

Unfortunately SQLite is not platform-independent (as per their FAQ),
and Postgres, AFAICT, does not have an embedded server.  I'm trying to
determine if MySQL has portable database files.


       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord@MIT.EDU                        PGP key available