Re: [Xlog-discussion] xlog-0.9 released

[w9ya]

On Wednesday 12 November 2003 10:33 am, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Nate Bargmann <address@hidden> [2003 Nov 11 08:55 -0600]:
> > Well, I think some natural keys are:
> >
> > Date/time
> > Callsign
> > QTH
> > Locator
> > QSL received
> > QSL sent
> > Band/frequency
> > Mode
> > TX location/callsign
> >
> > Looking at http://www.sleepycat.com/products/featurelist.shtml it
> > appears that a few db formats are available.
> >
> > My initial thought is that the db would be a simple mirror of the flat
> > file format now in use.  The advantage is that the db could be
> > structured for easy key/value searches with, I suspect, simpler code on
> > Xlog.  I envision multiple log dbs still allowed as with the current
> > flat file format.  I'm just looking for a way to make it easier for
> > ordered searches to be displayed and printed from Xlog.
>
> After reading the Berkeley DB tutorial and reference doc, I come away
> thinking that there is no way to mirror what Xlog is currently doing and
> enhance it with a search capability.
>
> It seems that Berkeley is more suited to a large amount of key/value
> pairs (such as a registry), but not something like a large group of
> records in a table format with each record being 1 QSO with same named
> keys, like an RDBMS.
>
> I'm stumped.
>
> I don't believe that tying Xlog to Postgres or MySQL is a particularly
> good idea as it will require a tremendous amount of handholding for the
> general ham population getting it set up and running correctly.
>
> I'm fresh out of ideas...
>
> 73, de Nate >>

Hey gang;

Since this appears to be a space/line delimited log file, wouldn't stuff like 
bash/gnu cli utils along with piping/sorting do just fine for this ? If not, 
I guess I don't understand the problem well enough. (Sorry, but I too roll my 
eyes and wonder at using a sledge hammer like SQL for something like this.)

Best regards;

Bob
w9ya