On 4 Oct 2002 at 21:13, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
> Bingo = great :).
> The I/O problem seems to be solved :).
>
> A table space concept would be top of the histlist :).
>
> The symlink version is not very comfortable and I think it would be a
> real hack.
> Also: If we had a clean table space concept it would be real advantage.
> In the first place it would be enough to define a directory (alter
> tablespace, changing sizes etc. could be a lot of work).
>
> How could CREATE TABLESPACE look like?
> Personally I like the Oracle Syntax.
Well. I (hopefully) understand need to get table spaces. But I absolutely hate
it the way oracle does it.. I am repeating all the points I posted before.
There was no follow up. I hope I get some on this.
1) It tries to be a volume assuming OS handles volumes inefficiently. Same
mentality as handling all disk I/O by in it self. May be worth when oracle did
it but is it worth now?
2) It allows joining multiple volumes for performance reason. If you want to
join multiple volume for performance, let RAID handle it. Is it job of RDBMS?
3) It puts multiple objets together. Why? I never fully understood having a
opeque file sitting on drive v/s neatly laid directory structure. I would
always prefer the directory structure.
Can anybody please tell me in detail.(Not just a pointing towards TODO items)
1) What a table space supposed to offer?
2) What a directory structure does not offer that table space does?
3) How do they compare for advantages/disadvantages..
Oracle familiarity is out. That's not even close to being good merit IMO. If
postgresql moves to oracle way of doing things, .. well, I won't be as much
hapy as I am now..
Thanks for your patience..
ByeShridhar
--
Newton's Little-Known Seventh Law: A bird in the hand is safer than one
overhead.
