This makes sense to me. I sense a TODO item :-)
(My dim and possibly incorrect memory of administering Ingres around 10
years ago was that it supported both raw devices and file system based
databases. We opted for a file system base, for reasons others have
mentioned here, but I seem to recall w
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anyone seriously suggesting that postgres should support either raw
> devices or use some sort of virtual file system? If not, this whole
> discussion is way off topic.
I have zero interest in actually doing it. However, it'd be nice if the
existi
Is anyone seriously suggesting that postgres should support either raw
devices or use some sort of virtual file system? If not, this whole
discussion is way off topic. And if they are my response would be that it
would at best be a serious waste of time - there is far more important
work to do.
c
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Mike Mascari wrote:
> 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
On Friday 22 August 2003 18:42, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bad link. This gives me a post by Lamar Owen talking about usng OIDs to
> name files.
I think he may be referring to the last paragraph. Vadim had said that the
tablenames would go to OIDs. They have always been individual files. Been a
lo
Mike,
> 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
Bad link. This gives me a post by Lamar Owe
Berkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:05 PM
To: Jan Wieck
Cc: Andrew Dunstan; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete "Why Postgres
<>
Yes, but you've just added a significant amount to the work the DB
system
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.
Jan,
> If a filesystem contains only very few big files (and nothing else) and
> these files do not grow or shrink during normal operation and are really
> fully allocated in the block tables, then said filesystems metadata does
> not change and that means that the filesystem will never ever be
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Single-file databases also introduce a number of problems:
1) The database file is extremely vulnerable to corruption, and if
corruption
occurs it is usually not localized but destroys the entire database
due to
corruption of the inter
Some well known database that is very popular amongst people who care
more for their data than for license fees uses few very big files that
are statically allocated (if using files instead of raw devices).
Sure does Oracle internally maintain some sort of filesystem. But this
is more due to ot
Guys,
> >BTW any comments on storing an entire database in single file? I don't
> > trust any file system for performance and data integrity if I have single
> > 100GB file. I would rather have multiple of them..
>
> I don't see why not. Entire file systems are stored within a single file
> someti
12 matches
Mail list logo
