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*... :-)
To me, applying database concepts to file systems is interesting, and
practical. It's not a perfected science by any means, but the idea that
a file system is a hierarchical database isn't new. :-)
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.
Cheers,
mark
--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness
bindthem...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
