Re: ASCII vs. Binary pfiles

From: Juliano Ravasi Ferraz (
Date: 04/04/01

Peter Ajamian wrote:
> Errr, ummm, *tries to think something up*, oh yeah, I know...
> Anyone want to comment on this one?  ASCII vs. binary pfiles.  I am
> probably in the minority, but I tend to prefer binary because (AFAIK)
> they load in faster and easier (no parsing necessary).  Also, there is a
> space consideration with ASCII which takes up lots more room plus wastes
> more space by storing each player's data in a seperate file (thus taking
> up directory space and wasted space to fill to the sector boundry on
> disk).
> Thoughts, comments, ideas, drug of chioce for staying up all night (or
> suggestions on how to fine-tune the caffine drip in one's IV)?
> Regards, Peter

If I have to choose: SQL.
Not a valid option? Ok... binary...

Both, binary and ascii, have their own advantages and disadvantages. I
think the best is a database (SQL) based playerfile, using MySQL,
PostgreeSQL, or any other good database parser. They are fast,
expansible, robust and adding or removing fields is the task of few

My MUD stills running with a binary playerfile, but I have made many
changes that now it gives me some of the power of a real database
system. For example, if I delete a clan, it runs through the playerfile
(with about 1,5K records) looking for members of that clan (muth like a
SQL query), and reseting their "clan" and "clanrank" fields. This is
done directely, without the need to open/check/close or
open/check/change/save each record. The same task on a ASCII-pfile based
MUD consumes a lot of disk/cpu usage.

I have made a good pfile converter for my playerfile, and to add/remove
fields to/from my playerfile, is as easy as a database/SQL system. Some
fields, like the player description was moved away from the playerfile,
to an separate file, much like "Memo" field type used on other database


Oxymoron: Bosnian Cease-Fire

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/05/01 PST