maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Sphinx Storage engine for MariaDB
>>>>> "Arjen" == Arjen Lentz <arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Arjen> Hi Andrew, all,
Arjen> On 28/07/2009, at 12:43 PM, Andrew Aksyonoff wrote:
>> Looks like I've overlooked this email back then. :( Peter pinged
>> me about Sphinx vs Maria status recently and I just found it. Well,
>> hopefully better late than never!
>> Sunday, June 7, 2009, 1:18:30 PM, you wrote:
MW> Andrew, what are the possible drawbacks you can see with having
MW> Sphinx to be a part of MairaDB for a user that is not using
>> Can't think of any. SphinxSE is a mere client and as such does not
>> allocate any big RAM buffers or other resources.
MW> I assume that if Sphinx is not enabled, it will not take any
MW> If Sphinx is enabled but not used, what are the resorces it
>> would use?
>> Pretty much none, AFAIK.
Arjen> In 5.1 it's a pluggable.
Arjen> So the question is, do we want to compile it in, or compile it "with"
Arjen> and leave it as a pluggable.
Arjen> Then a user just has to explicitly INSTALL PLUGIN once, and otherwise
Arjen> there's no RAM use at all.
Arjen> Compiling it in has the advantage of everybody having it enabled,
Arjen> which make starting to use it a tiny bit easier.
Arjen> But it may be close to a moot point, in 5.1
I think we should compile all the plugin in (but not enable all by
default), at least for now, to make MariaDB as easy to use as
Later we can consider if we want to have 'mariadb-min, mariadb and
mariadb-max' versions that have different compilation/configure