From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58976)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jSiO3-0008E3-2P
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:36:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jSiO2-0000rx-Kr
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:36:02 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50569)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1jSiO2-0000pn-85
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:36:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1jSiO2-0007a3-5E
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 10:36:02 -0400
Subject: [bug#39258] [PATCH v3 1/3] guix: Generate package metadata cache.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.39258.B39258.158791175929130@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
References: <20200327162654.18785-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
 <20200327162654.18785-2-arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
 <87h7x8haor.fsf@gnu.org>
 <CAJ3okZ1M=xvMS7ZQpTV5PgPKn83skLx7Vn6ty7ezY1MwsA=qaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 16:35:47 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3okZ1M=xvMS7ZQpTV5PgPKn83skLx7Vn6ty7ezY1MwsA=qaw@mail.gmail.com>
 (zimoun's message of "Sun, 26 Apr 2020 11:48:36 +0200")
Message-ID: <87r1wa48n0.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Cc: Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>, 39258@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Simon,

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 at 22:48, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

[...]

>> Note that this is probably the place where we could eventually add the
>> computation of an inverted index like zimoun suggested in
>> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2020-01/msg00243.html>.
>
> We should first agree on the extra cost (time) we are ready to pay to
> build improvements.

It=E2=80=99s complicated.  As it stands, I=E2=80=99d rather not add overhea=
d to =E2=80=98guix
pull=E2=80=99, especially since current =E2=80=98guix search=E2=80=99 on my=
 SSD is fast enough
and can hardly be made any faster.

Realistically though, I understand that things are different on slower
machines and/or spinning disks.  That=E2=80=99s why I=E2=80=99m interested =
in seeing how
Arun=E2=80=99s proposed changes can affect such machines.

If, as a bonus, it allows us to have an inverted index and thus improve
the quality of search results, that=E2=80=99s great!

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.