Changes between Version 11 and Version 12 of YumBenchmarks

Show
Ignore:
Author:
james (IP: 65.172.155.230)
Timestamp:
09/29/10 16:21:49 (7 years ago)
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • YumBenchmarks

    v11 v12  
    2020== Comparison between latest "yum list", repoquery --installed and rpm == 
    2121 
    22 Yum is never going to be **faster** than rpm, because we'll always be doing a bit more work. We can try to make the difference as small as possible though. This information tries to show how close we are, and where the extra time goes. 
     22Yum is never going to be '''faster''' than rpm, because we'll always be doing a bit more work. We can try to make the difference as small as possible though. This information tries to show how close we are, and where the extra time goes. 
    2323 
    2424We don't want to measure gnome-terminal etc. time, so for -qa we'll pipe everything to "wc -l". 
    4949=== rpm-python === 
    5050 
    51 Obviously running python instead of C has **some** overhead, as do the conversions needed for the rpm-python bindings. But they aren't that big: 
     51Obviously running python instead of C has '''some''' overhead, as do the conversions needed for the rpm-python bindings. But they aren't that big: 
    5252 
    5353{{{ 
    265265For a long time yum had been "much worse" than rpm for install/remove commands. Some of that was due to general fixes, but it also generally has got less love because any difference in speed was only really noticeable with small numbers of small packages (otherwise the I/O from the install/remove vastly outweighs any other part of the operation). 
    266266 
    267 It is also worth noting that yum has to do a non-trivial amount more work than plain rpm, as yum keeps a detailed history log and it's own yumdb, so yum should never be as fast as rpm but we can (and do) endevour to get close
     267And again, yum has to do a non-trivial amount more work than plain rpm, as yum keeps a detailed history log and it's own yumdb
    268268 
    269269These timings were performed on a virt-machine: