Greg, > FWIW, Informix can be run using a "cooked" (Unix) file for storing data or > it uses "raw" disk space and bypasses the ordinary (high level) UNIX > controllers and does its own reads/writes. About 10 times faster and safer. > Of course, itmay have taken a lot of programmer time to make that solid. > But the performance gains are significant.
Yes, but it's still slower than PostgreSQL on medium-end hardware. ;-) This idea has been discussed numerous times on the HACKERS list, and is a (pretty much) closed issue. While Oracle and SQL Server use their own filesystems, PostgreSQL will not because: 1) It would interfere with our cross-platform compatibility. PostgreSQL runs on something like 20 OSes. 2) The filesystem projects out there are (mostly) well-staffed and are constantly advancing using specialized technology and theory. There's no way that the PostgreSQL team can do a better job in our "spare time". 3) Development of our "own" filesystem would then require PostgreSQL to create and maintain a whole hardware compatibility library, and troubleshoot problems on exotic hardware and wierd RAID configurations. 4) A database FS also often causes side-effect problems; for example, one cannot move or copy a SQL Server partition without destroying it. Of course, that could all change if some corp with deep pockets steps in an decides to create a "postgresFS" and funds and staffs the effort 100%. But it's unlikely to be a priority for the existing development team any time in the forseeable future. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly