From @shoyer: What about indirection for chunks? The use case here is incrementally updated and/or versioned arrays (e.g., each day you update the last chunk with the latest data, without altering the rest of the data). In the typical way this is done, you hash each chunk and use hashes as keys in another store. The map from chunk indices to hashes is also something that you might want to store differently (e.g., in memory). I guess this would also be pretty easy to implement on top of the Storage abstraction.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4