> it will now be a command line application that outputs the data as uncompressed XML, in the same format as current dumps.That will help a great deal. But I assume your application will be for Linux only?
So it would help to still generate current compressed dumps, as post processing step, and store them online for download.
One of the reasons of xml dumps is platform independence, both from producer side (we had ever evolving SQL dumps earlier), and consumer side (not everyone uses Linux).
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Petr Onderka
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:04 PM
To: Wikimedia developers; Wikipedia Xmldatadumps-l
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] [Xmldatadumps-l] Suggested file format of new incremental dumps
A reply to all those who basically want to keep the current XML dumps:
I have decided to change the primary way of reading the dumps: it will now be a command line application that outputs the data as uncompressed XML, in the same format as current dumps.
This way, you should be able to use the new dumps with minimal changes to your code.
Keeping the dumps in a text-based format doesn't make sense, because that can't be updated efficiently, which is the whole reason for the new dumps.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Byrial Jensen <email@example.com>wrote:
> As a regular of user of dump files I would not want a "fancy" file
> format with indexes stored as trees etc.
> I parse all the dump files (both for SQL tables and the XML files)
> with a one pass parser which inserts the data I want (which sometimes
> is only a small fraction of the total amount of data in the file) into
> my local database. I will normally never store uncompressed dump
> files, but pipe the uncompressed data directly from bunzip or gunzip
> to my parser to save disk space. Therefore it is important to me that
> the format is simple enough for a one pass parser.
> I cannot really imagine who would use a library with object oriented
> API to read dump files. No matter what it would be inefficient and
> have fewer features and possibilities than using a real database.
> I could live with a binary format, but I have doubts if it is a good idea.
> It will be harder to take sure that your parser is working correctly,
> and you have to consider things like endianness, size of integers,
> format of floats etc. which give no problems in text formats. The
> binary files may be smaller uncompressed (which I don't store anyway)
> but not necessary when compressed, as the compression will do better on text files.
> - Byrial
> Xmldatadumps-l mailing list
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l mailing list