Author: James Swafford
Date: 07:22:47 03/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2006 at 18:20:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 03, 2006 at 17:10:03, Mark Boylan wrote: > >>On March 03, 2006 at 17:06:01, Steve Maughan wrote: >> >>>Dann, >>> >>>I don't like the idea of a SQL based system. I'm not an expert in SQL (which is >>>one reason I don't like the idea of SQL :) ) and I also think it would mean that >>>an engine that wants to support the format would be *much* more complex than one >>>that supported a well defined record based structure. I've also concerns that >>>SQL may be too slow for very fast blitz games - but as I said I'm not a SQL >>>expert so my fears may have no basis. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Steve >> >> >>I have to agree with Steve. I think that SQL is a great idea for book-building >>tools and such. But if I had to add the psql headers and link to those libs, I'd >>probably just say "forget it." I would think there needs to be an export format >>for engines. > >Just use an API. > >It will be far faster and better than a custom formet. >Also, all the bugs would be removed. >It would be more flexible and basically better in every conceivable way. > >Not using SQL is definitely the wrong approach. I've come to the same conclusion. Let database engines do what they do best; no need to reinvent the wheel. I'm starting a rewrite of Prophet, and I'm going to use a Postgres backend to log games played, eval scores, book moves, etc etc etc. I use Postgres at work and *love* it. Postgres is free, and now there are even Win32 builds available. The downside to this approach is that installing a database to use my engine is going to turn most people off, but I'm not writing my engine for most people, so I can accept that. Have you put much thought into what an opening book schema might look like? -- James
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.