Every (good) developer knows that copying of memory and boxing, especially when dealing with a large amount of pieces like members of collections and the cells in a table, are a bad thing for your performance.
More experienced developers also know that novice developers tend to focus on just their algorithms to improve performance, while often the single biggest bottleneck is needless boxing and allocating. Experienced developers come up with algorithms that avoid boxing and copying; they master clever pragmatical engineering and know how to improve algorithms. A lot of newcomers use virtual machines and script languages that are terrible at giving you the tools to control this and then they start endless religious debates about how great their programming language is (as if it matters). (Anti-.NET people don’t get on your horses too soon: if you know what you are doing, C# is actually quite good here).
We were of course doing some silly copying ourselves. Apparently it had a significant impact on performance.
Once Jürg and Carlos have finished the work on parallelizing SELECT queries we plan to let the code that walks the SQLite statement fill in the DBusMessage directly without any memory copying or boxing (for marshalling to DBus). We found the get_reply and send_reply functions; they sound useful for this purpose.
I still don’t really like DBus as IPC for data transfer of Tracker’s RDF store’s query results. Personally I think I would go for a custom Unix socket here. But Jürg so far isn’t convinced. Admittedly he’s probably right; he’s always right. Still, DBus to me doesn’t feel like a good IPC for this data transfer..
We know about the requests to have direct access to the SQLite database from your own process. I explained in the bug that SQLite3 isn’t MVCC and that this means that your process will often get blocked for a long time on our transaction. A longer time than any IPC overhead takes.