From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Date: | 2006-05-16 03:44:26 |
Message-ID: | 20060516034426.GA11824@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 05:42:53PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >Windows98? No, those decisions predate any thought of running Oracle
> >on Windows, probably by decades. But I think the thought process was
> >about as above whenever they did make it; they were running on some
> >pretty stupid OSes way back when.
> Windows XP?
> ****runs****
You guys have to kill your Windows hate - in jest or otherwise. It's
zealous, and blinding. I'm picking on you Joshua, only because your
message is the one I saw last. Sorry...
Writing your own block caching layer can make a lot of sense. Why would it
be assumed, that a file system designed for use from a desktop, would be
optimal at all for database style loads?
Why would it be assumed that a file system to be used for many different
smaller files would be optimal at all for database style loads?
It's always going to be true, that the more specific the requirements,
the more highly optimized one can design a system. The Linux block
caching layer, or file system layout can be beat *for sure* for database
loads.
The real question - and I believe Tom and others have correctly harped
on it in the past is - is it worth it? Until somebody actually pulls
up their sleeves, invests a month or more of their life to it, and
does it, we really won't know. And even then, the cost of maintenance
would have to be considered. Who is going to keep up-to-date on
theoretical storage models? What happens when generic file system
levels again surpass the first attempt?
Personally, I believe it would be worth it - but only to a few. And
these most of these few are likely using Oracle. So, no gain unless
you can convince them to switch back... :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)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 bind them...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-05-16 03:45:13 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2429: Explain does not report object's schema |
Previous Message | ipig | 2006-05-16 03:42:48 | Re: Why use " != " |