On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:47 PM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote: >> >> Perhaps but I assume you're not running Facebook on DropBox :) Certainly >> there is still interesting use cases for RDBMS's and the engines therein. >> InnoDB has caught up so much that PBXT no longer has the edge, but I still >> find it very interesting. Were Paul to have the resources InnoDB does, I >> suspect PBXT would be significant. > > I agree with you. If there were more resources behind PBXT it could > have been very interesting. I don't know how much of it is > log-structured compared to the original design but I was very > interested in that. I blame myself and others who didn't have time to > help Paul get this to market. I suspect that PBXT still has advantages > compared to InnoDB on multi-core servers.
The log structure was very very cool, but I actually liked the hybrid approach Paul was doing with the fixed rows + log structure. It was quite elegant, although, being a casual observer in the whole process, it's hard for me to see the real impact of the design. Still, I found it very very cool. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~pbxt-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~pbxt-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
