Hello
In the current version of Ruby
(http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/lib/rinda/tuplespace.rb)
Rinda::TupleBag is implemented with hash by tuple size and then with array.
This realization is simple and fast on very small amount of data, but
scales very bad (especially in searching).
How will it be rewritten? Is there any attempts to make faster the
standard version?
--
WBR, Alex V Breger, computer-science.ru
Hello
In the current version of Ruby
(http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/lib/rinda/tuplespace.rb)
Rinda::TupleBag is implemented with hash by tuple size and then with array.
This realization is simple and fast on very small amount of data (e.g.
on writing), but
scales very bad in reading and searching.
How can it be rewritten?
May be other realizations of tuplespaces are more scalable and fast?
Is there any attempts to make faster the standard version?
--
WBR, Alex V Breger, computer-science.ru
In the current version of Ruby
(http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/lib/rinda/tuplespace.rb\)
Rinda::TupleBag is implemented with hash by tuple size and then with array.
This realization is simple and fast on very small amount of data (e.g.
on writing), but
scales very bad in reading and searching.How can it be rewritten?
I have heard of attempts at backing TupleSpace with a database, but I've not heard of any being completed.
May be other realizations of tuplespaces are more scalable and fast?
Is there any attempts to make faster the standard version?
In ruby, not to my knowledge.
On Oct 15, 2007, at 09:29 , Alex V. Breger wrote:
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
I'm working on creating a faster tuple space implementation called Marinda that is completely independent of Rinda, though it won't be ready for release in the near future. All the tuple space functionality is implemented, and I'm using it in a production setting, but the scalable tuple space matching algorithm isn't implemented (which is the main reason why I haven't released it yet). A scalable algorithm is challenging, but it should be more doable with my implementation than in Rinda since I restrict tuples to be values rather than allowing object references (via DRb) like Rinda does. I'm currently reading the literature for some insights on a suitable algorithm. Unfortunately, I have a number of things to work on so implementing a scalable algorithm is lower down in my priorities. Anyway, for details on the design, see my talk slides at
--Young
On Oct 15, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Alex V. Breger wrote:
In the current version of Ruby
(http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/lib/rinda/tuplespace.rb\)
Rinda::TupleBag is implemented with hash by tuple size and then with array.
This realization is simple and fast on very small amount of data (e.g.
on writing), but
scales very bad in reading and searching.How can it be rewritten?
May be other realizations of tuplespaces are more scalable and fast?
Is there any attempts to make faster the standard version?
I've thrown something together that uses KirbyBase (flat text ruby DBMS) as
the back end. Let me know if that interests you.
This does NOT support transactions.
/Shawn
On 10/15/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Oct 15, 2007, at 09:29 , Alex V. Breger wrote:
> In the current version of Ruby
> (http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk/lib/rinda/tuplespace.rb\)
> Rinda::TupleBag is implemented with hash by tuple size and then
> with array.
> This realization is simple and fast on very small amount of data (e.g.
> on writing), but
> scales very bad in reading and searching.
>
> How can it be rewritten?I have heard of attempts at backing TupleSpace with a database, but
I've not heard of any being completed.> May be other realizations of tuplespaces are more scalable and fast?
> Is there any attempts to make faster the standard version?In ruby, not to my knowledge.
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
i've backed it by sqlite, but not all functionality works due to the requirements of remote objects being connected in memory to other host in the current impl - i hacked in 'reconnect/unmarshal' functionality but it's not fully tested. it's *way* faster for big objects and persistent. ultimately i decided that a total rewrite based on sqlite would be the way to go.
cheers.
On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
I have heard of attempts at backing TupleSpace with a database, but I've not heard of any being completed.
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
Shawn Anderson wrote:
I've thrown something together that uses KirbyBase (flat text ruby DBMS)
as
the back end. Let me know if that interests you.This does NOT support transactions.
/Shawn
Sorry to disturb the entire list.
Shawn,
I'd like to see your implementation in KirbyBase.
I'm at: WayneFChin @ gmail DOT com
Thanks,
--Wayne
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
@hash[size] ||= []
@hash[size].push(ary)
Hashed by sizes and array for storing tuples of one size
Can we use tree of hashes here instead of hash of arrays? It can be
useful for any hierarchical data pushed into TupleBag, if we have a
lot of tuples with same length (e.g. rdf or xml data).
--
WBR, Alex V Breger
I think we need a rewrite of standard rinda's implementation, e.g.
with Hashes, not by arrays.
We need faster verison in ruby, because current version is too slow
even on not so big databases.
--
WBR, Alex V Breger
Alex V. Breger wrote:
I think we need a rewrite of standard rinda's implementation, e.g.
with Hashes, not by arrays.
We need faster verison in ruby, because current version is too slow
even on not so big databases.
Is this even possible? IIRC, rinda uses #=== to match each element of the tuples. Hash won't do that.
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
I think we need a rewrite of standard rinda's implementation, e.g.
with Hashes, not by arrays.
Last I read the code, Rinda would work with either an Array or a Hash as the underlying data structure. I seem to recall that anything supporting #each would work, but I'm not sure.
We need faster verison in ruby, because current version is too slow
even on not so big databases.
Don't rewrite, profile.
On Oct 25, 2007, at 08:35 , Alex V. Breger wrote:
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars