Proposal: New keydb format

[Neal H. Walfield]

Hi,

At Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:49:06 +0100,
Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 at 01:58:00 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > At Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:28:28 +0100, Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> >> Care to look into that?  I'd be happy to resume the benchmark later.
> > 
> > I spent a little bit of time on this this evening and found the bug.
> > I think --with-colons --list-sigs should now work.
> 
> Thanks a lot!  Yes indeed it does, and for my use case the performance is just
> amazing, especially with --list-sigs \o/  See the details below.
> 
> However note that in order to create a keyring in keydb format I had to
> to apply to apply the following patch.  (But I guess the proper fix
> would be to remove everything from and including the ‘;’ at the end of
> each SQL statement.)

I applied a patch similar to this to master, but I forgot to apply it
to the branch.  I'm sorry about that.

> > Please feel free to run some benchmarks.

Thanks for these benchmarks.  The results are overall very good, I
think.  Particularly given that I haven't actually spent time
optimizing the code.  Thanks to your work, you've given me a few
places to start.

FWIW, I think I know where the memory problem is and it should be
relatively easy to fix with little additional CPU overhead.

Thanks,

:) Neal