On Thu, 30 May 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote: > I didn't think it _had_ to auto-morph. My understanding is that the > default buckets do, because we assume the performance will be better if > they do. That makes sense, because a file_bucket is likely to be read > multiple times, so it makes sense to morph the bucket on the first read, > so that we don't have to go to the disk twice.
If it didn't, how could you possibly pass back a buffer containing the data? In other words, I guess there's no hard and fast rule that it *has* to actually morph, but since it's doing all the work of copying that data into an in-memory buffer anyway, it doesn't make much sense *not* to morph to a bucket type that handles in-memory buffers. Sure it could allocate a new buffer and redo the copy every single time it was read from, but why would it want to? <shrug> --Cliff
