dbm.sqlite proof of concept

[smontanaro]

BPO	3783
Nosy	@rhettinger, @doko42, @jcea, @pitrou, @merwok, @florentx, @erlend-aasland
Files	sq_dict.py: an alternate sqlite dbm-like interface v.5 dbsqlite.py: Fixed len dbdict.py: Non-synchronous DB based on a dict subclass.

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2008-09-04.23:57:30.571>
labels = ['type-feature', 'library']
title = 'dbm.sqlite proof of concept'
updated_at = <Date 2021-07-28.20:11:08.117>
user = 'https://github.com/smontanaro'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2021-07-28.20:11:08.117>
actor = 'erlendaasland'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2008-09-04.23:57:30.571>
creator = 'skip.montanaro'
dependencies = []
files = ['11602', '12933', '12939']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 3783
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 51.0
messages = ['72556', '72565', '72566', '72567', '72568', '72569', '72570', '72587', '72595', '72661', '72677', '72719', '72725', '72729', '73012', '73013', '73018', '73020', '73025', '73026', '73027', '73028', '73032', '73034', '73046', '73053', '73054', '73067', '73068', '73070', '73072', '73074', '73077', '73080', '73775', '73800', '79050', '80802', '80803', '80808', '80817', '81109', '81110', '81113', '81155', '81483', '85717', '95492', '95804', '97473', '248835']
nosy_count = 11.0
nosy_names = ['rhettinger', 'doko', 'jcea', 'ghaering', 'pitrou', 'erno', 'eric.araujo', 'gregburd', 'flox', 'rute', 'erlendaasland']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'low'
resolution = None
stage = 'needs patch'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue3783'
versions = ['Python 3.4']

[smontanaro]

Based on recent discussions about ridding Python of bsddb I decided to
see how hard it would be to implement a barebones dbm.sqlite module.
Turns out, not very hard.

No docs. No test cases. Caveat emptor. But I think it can serve as
at least a proof of concept, maybe as the basis for a new module in
3.1.

[smontanaro]

Attaching corrected module.

[smontanaro]

Attaching test cases based on dumbdbm tests.

[smontanaro]

Another slight revision to the module.

[smontanaro]

Trivial doc diffs against 3.0b3 doc.

[smontanaro]

Another tweak - add values()

[smontanaro]

Updated test cases

[pitrou]

It would be more efficient to base keys() on iterkeys() than the
reverse, IMO.
Other than that, why not open a branch or at least upload full-fledged
patch files? :)

[smontanaro]

Antoine> It would be more efficient to base keys() on iterkeys() than the
Antoine> reverse, IMO.

True. I was just modifying the dumbdbm implementation.

Antoine> Other than that, why not open a branch or at least upload
Antoine> full-fledged patch files? :)

Well, I only intended to create the initial proof of concept, but then last
night I couldn't sleep so I cobbled the test module and docs from the
existing stuff ... ;-)

When I get a couple minutes free I'll try and condense it into a more
suitable form. Probably not until the weekend though.

Skip

[smontanaro]

OK, I made a sandbox project out of it:

svn+ssh://pythondev@svn.python.org/sandbox/trunk/dbm_sqlite

Hack away!

[rhettinger]

I would like to see something like this go into 3.0 so that shelves
don't become useless for Windows users.

[josiahcarlson]

Here's an alternate version with most of bsddb's interface intact.