Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mike Mascari
Subject Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres
Date
Msg-id 3F467D3D.5000504@mascari.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres
Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus wrote:

> Jan,
>
> In my experience (a lot of MS SQL, more MS Access than I want to talk about, 
> and a little Oracle) corruption failures on single-file databases are more 
> frequent than databases which depend on the host OS, and such failures are 
> much more severe when the occur.
>

Vadim seemed to think differently:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=00030722102200.00601%40lorc.wgcr.org&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3DVadim%2Bsingle%2Bfile%2Bpostgres

In addition to Jan's points, using a single pre-allocated file also
reduces file descriptor consumption, although I don't know what the
costs are regarding maintaining the LRU of file descriptors, the price
of opens and closes, the price of having a high upper limit of file
descriptors, etc.

Just because Oracle and MS do something doesn't necessary make it
wrong. :-)


Mike Mascari
mascarm@mascari.com










pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres
Next
From: "Maksim Likharev"
Date:
Subject: Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres