in-memory

I'm looking for suggestions regarding in-memory key-value store engines or libraries, that have C++ interfaces or that are written in C++. I'm looking for solutions that can scale without any problems to about 100mill key-value pairs and that are compatible/compilable on linux and win32/64 How about std::map ? http://cplusplus.com/reference/stl/map/ If you really need to store such amount of pairs in memory consider this Sparse Hash . It has special implementation which is optimized for low memory consumption. std::map is fine given that size of key and value is small and the available memory

This similar question's answers all require the file to be saved. However, I'm trying to convert the file and then copy it to the clipboard. How can I convert a Bitmap (or any image) to a PNG without saving it to the file system? Update: I'm trying to paste the image into an application (in this case Evernote). When you copy an image into the clipboard (e.g. via the browser), it remembers its image format and when you paste it in, it will create an image with the same exact format. For example, if you copy a PNG, it will paste a PNG. If you copy a JPG, it will paste a JPG, etc. I am trying to

I am currently using DB2 to do unit tests, but it is sometime quite slow. I would need a good in-memory database that would include all the feature of DB2. Does this type of in-memory database exist, or do they only allow standard SQL feature? Thank you. EDIT The DB2 Database is on a remote server, so I would need a solution to replicate the schema of that database on a local in-memory database to speed up the tests. I would need a good in-memory database that would include all the feature of DB2. Derby (ex Cloudscape) is DB2's language compatible. And it has an in memory mode. Maybe also have

Is there any way of detecting that a debugger is running in memory? and here comes the on Form Load pseudocode. if debugger.IsRunning then Application.exit end if Edit: The original title was "Detecting an in memory debugger" Try the following if ( System.Diagnostics.Debugger.IsAttached ) { ... } Two things to keep in mind before using this to close an application running in the debugger: I've used a debugger to pull a crash trace from a commercial .NET application and send it to the company where it was subsequently fixed with a thank you for making it easy and That check can be trivially

So I recently learned of the new JavaCompiler API available in JDK 1.6. This makes it very simple to compile a String to a .class file directly from running code: String className = "Foo"; String sourceCode = "..."; JavaCompiler compiler = ToolProvider.getSystemJavaCompiler(); List<JavaSourceFromString> unitsToCompile = new ArrayList<JavaSourceFromString>() {{ add(new JavaSourceFromString(className, sourceCode)); }}; StandardJavaFileManager fileManager = compiler.getStandardFileManager(null, null, null); compiler.getTask(null, fileManager, null, null, null, unitsToCompile).call(); fileManager

How can I save/load full embedded h2 in-memory database to some file or directory in binary mode for faster loading. I want to use this for caching data so I don't have to run all the lines of create table/insert clauses every time. Thomas Mueller Instead of using an in-memory database, you could use a regular (persisted) database. You can still use in-memory tables even then (create memory table). The easiest way to persist a completely in-memory database to disk is to use the SCRIPT TO 'fileName' SQL statement. This will create an SQL script. The data is stored in text form, which doesn't

How can I create an in-memory table in PostgreSQL? Create a RAM disk using software appropriate to your OS. Use CREATE TABLESPACE to create a DB cluster on the RAM disk. When you create your table, use the TABLESPACE clause. Obviously, your RAM tables will not persist across system reboots unless you save the RAM disk. Well, it's not technically a in memory table, but, you can create a global temporary table: create global temporary table foo (a char(1)); It's not guaranteed that it will remain in memory the whole time, but it probably will (unless is a huge table). You can also consider

There are quite a few independent and not-so-independent studies comparing traditional RDBMSs but I haven't managed to find any good material on in-memory databases. I am primarily interested in ones specialized for OLTP. So far, I managed to find generic white papers on TimesTen and MySQL Cluster, but I have yet to see a head-to-head comparison. There are other alternatives (e.g. from IBM), but there's even less easily available material. The information is scattered all over the web, but here's what I found out: Introduction to database benchmarking The first thing that you need to do is