On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 23:28 -0400, mark@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:50PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 18:24 -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> > > Recently seen in ACM Operating Systems Review (this is the first time
> > > I've found as many as 1 interesting article in it in a while, and
> > > there were 3 things I found worthwhile...):
> > > ...
> > > NILFS is a log-structured file system developed for Linux.
> > As I understand LFSs, they are not ideal for a database system. An LFS
> > is optimized so that it writes sequentially. However, PostgreSQL already
> > ...
> > Do you see an advantage in using LFS for PostgreSQL?
>
> Hey guys - I think the original poster only meant to suggest that it
> was *interesting*... :-)
>
I see, my mistake.
> Applying any database on top of another database seems inefficient to me.
> That's one reason why I argue the opposite - PostgreSQL *should* have its
> own on disk layout, and not being laid out on top of another generic
> system designed for purposes other than database storage. The reason it
> isn't pursued at present, and perhaps should not be pursued at present,
> is that PostgreSQL has other more important priorities in the short term.
>
I think that it would be a higher priority if someone showed a
substantial performance improvement. Some filesystems don't really cause
much overhead that isn't needed by PostgreSQL.
If someone did show a substantial improvement, I would be interested to
see it.
And if there is an improvement, shouldn't that be a project for
something like Linux, where other databases could also benefit? It could
just be implemented as a database-specific filesystem.
Regards,Jeff Davis
