So, my project did result in... something. Nothing too impressive, though. My implementation of search ended up being about the same speed as the current implementation because of the pickle module. I finished my project at the very last minute before it was due, so I didn't have time to find and implement an alternative pickling/serialization module. There must be a faster python pickler out there, though, any recommendations? After I turned in my project I had final exams and then winter break, and I basically didn't want to look at my code at all during that time. Now that you've brought it up, though, I wouldn't mind working on it, perhaps polishing it (okay, it needs more than polishing) so that it might actually be a nice addition to portage? I'm not doing any coding for any of my classes this semester (except for some assembler) so I definitely wouldn't mind working on this on the side.
The reason why it will need (significantly) more work is because I basically had no idea what I was getting into with the regex search. I implemented $ and *, if I remember correctly, and for anything else the search just defaults to the current portage search. I don't know whether implementing regex search with the suffix tree that I used to implement the search would make sense... I'll have to think about it some more. In fact, I have nothing else to do this rainy afternoon :]
If I can find an unpickler that can unpickle at a reasonable speed, my search implementation would be significantly faster than the one currently in use. I'd show you my code, but I have to admit I'm intimidated by Alec's recent picking apart of Doug's code! For example, I don't even know how to use docstrings... The code probably could be cleaned up a lot in general since I was eventually just trying to get it to work before it was due.
Thanks for asking, let me know what you think! (Also, sorry, René, for sending this to you twice.)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM, René 'Necoro' Neumann <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
has your project resulted in anything?
Just curios about perhaps nice portage additions
Emma Strubell schrieb:
> Hi everyone. My name is Emma, and I am completely new to this list. I've
> been using Gentoo since 2004, including Portage of course, and before I say
> anything else I'd like to say thanks to everyone for such a kickass package
> management system!!
> Anyway, for my final project in my Data Structures & Algorithms class this
> semester, I would like to modify the search functionality in emerge.
> Something I've always noticed about 'emerge -s' or '-S' is that, in general,
> it takes a very long time to perform the searches. (Although, lately it does
> seem to be running faster, specifically on my laptop as opposed to my
> desktop. Strangely, though, it seems that when I do a simple 'emerge -av
> whatever' on my laptop it takes a very long time for emerge to find the
> package and/or determine the dependecies - *whatever it's doing behind that
> spinner. I can definitely go into more detail about this if anyone's
> interested. It's really been puzzling me!) So, as my final project I've
> proposed to improve the time it takes to perform a search using emerge. My
> professor suggested that I look into implementing indexing.
> However, I've started looking at the code, and I must admit I'm pretty
> overwhelmed! I don't know where to start. I was wondering if anyone on here
> could give me a quick overview of how the search function currently works,
> an idea as to what could be modified or implemented in order to improve the
> running time of this code, or any tip really as to where I should start or
> what I should start looking at. I'd really appreciate any help or advice!!
> Thanks a lot, and keep on making my Debian-using professor jealous :]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----