Andreas Huber
ac1ee20046
LuDB has a few disadvantages.
1. Most notably disk space. H2 wastes a lot of valuable disk space.
For my test data set with 44 million entries it is 14 MB
(sometimes a lot more; depends on H2 internal cleanup). With
data-store it is 15 KB.
Overall I could reduce the disk space from 231 MB to 200 MB (13.4 %
in this example). That is an average of 4.6 bytes per entry.
2. Speed:
a) Liquibase is slow. The first time it takes approx. three seconds
b) Query and insertion. with data-store we can insert entries
up to 1.6 times faster.
Data-store uses a few tricks to save disk space:
1. We encode the tags into the file names.
2. To keep them short we translate the key/value of the tag into
shorter numbers. For example "foo" -> 12 and "bar" to 47. So the
tag "foo"/"bar" would be 12/47.
We then translate this number into a numeral system of base 62
(a-zA-Z0-9), so it can be used for file names and it is shorter.
That way we only have to store the mapping of string to int.
3. We do that in a simple tab separated file.
25 lines
536 B
Groovy
25 lines
536 B
Groovy
apply plugin: 'antlr'
|
|
|
|
dependencies {
|
|
compile project(':pdb-api')
|
|
compile project(':file-utils')
|
|
compile project(':pdb-utils')
|
|
antlr "org.antlr:antlr4:4.7"
|
|
|
|
compile 'org.lucares:primitiveCollections:0.1.20170205141947'
|
|
compile 'org.apache.commons:commons-lang3:3.5'
|
|
|
|
compile 'org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-core:2.8.2'
|
|
compile 'org.apache.logging.log4j:log4j-slf4j-impl:2.8.2'
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
sourceSets {
|
|
generated{
|
|
java.srcDir "build/generated-src/antlr/main"
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
compileJava{
|
|
source += sourceSets.generated.java
|
|
}
|