Mercurial > hg > Blog
changeset 58:0cd05745be92
add a blog entry about the portage metadata cache
author | Dirk Olmes <dirk@xanthippe.ping.de> |
---|---|
date | Sat, 28 Feb 2015 02:42:21 +0100 |
parents | 7897bdc57faf |
children | 8f5f6c388664 f31796d4c36a |
files | content/Linux/portage-metadata-cache.md |
diffstat | 1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/content/Linux/portage-metadata-cache.md Sat Feb 28 02:42:21 2015 +0100 @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +Title: speeding up portage's metadata cache +Date: 2015-02-26 +Lang: en + +[Gentoo's](http://www.gentoo.org) portage keeps metadata about installed ebuilds in `/var/cache/edb`. Dependency info for all installed ebuilds is in a `dep` subdirectory which typically looks something like this: + + . + ├── usr + │ └── portage + │ ├── app-admin + │ │ ├── eselect-1.4.1 + │ │ ├── eselect-lib-bin-symlink-0.1.1 + │ │ ├── eselect-opengl-1.2.7 + │ │ ├── gamin-0.1.10-r1 + │ │ ├── logrotate-3.8.7 + │ │ └── perl-cleaner-2.16 + ... + +When portage needs to process dependency info, it reads those files. On a normal system, you will have a couple of hundred packages installed. This means that dependency processing does quite a bit of file processing. + +Now if that dependency info was stored in some kind of database, wouldn't that speed up dependency processing? + +I stumbled over [a wiki page](http://gentoo-en.vfose.ru/wiki/Portage_SQLite_Cache) describing how to switch portage's metadata cache to sqlite. Even the portage man page talks about this - try running `man portage` and read the section about the `modules` file. + +So I gave the sqlite metadata cache a try to measure if it really speeds up portage. After configuring the database and rebuilding the metadata cache, `/var/cache/edb/dep` looks a bit different now: + + . + └── usr + ├── portage + └── portage.sqlite + +Now let's get to the interesting part: does the database really speed up portage? To measure, I ran a couple of `emerge -vp` commands using the normal setup and again using the database. The results are quite disappointing, though: + +The best improvement was about 6% with the metadata database. + +57% of the ebuilds did run slower with the metadata database, the worst increase was about 43% + +So it looks like fiddling with portage's metadata cache is not really worth the hassle.