On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 23:28 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:50PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 18:24 -0400, Chris Browne wrote: > > > Recently seen in ACM Operating Systems Review (this is the first time > > > I've found as many as 1 interesting article in it in a while, and > > > there were 3 things I found worthwhile...): > > > ... > > > NILFS is a log-structured file system developed for Linux. > > As I understand LFSs, they are not ideal for a database system. An LFS > > is optimized so that it writes sequentially. However, PostgreSQL already > > ... > > Do you see an advantage in using LFS for PostgreSQL? > > Hey guys - I think the original poster only meant to suggest that it > was *interesting*... :-) >
I see, my mistake. > Applying any database on top of another database seems inefficient to me. > That's one reason why I argue the opposite - PostgreSQL *should* have its > own on disk layout, and not being laid out on top of another generic > system designed for purposes other than database storage. The reason it > isn't pursued at present, and perhaps should not be pursued at present, > is that PostgreSQL has other more important priorities in the short term. > I think that it would be a higher priority if someone showed a substantial performance improvement. Some filesystems don't really cause much overhead that isn't needed by PostgreSQL. If someone did show a substantial improvement, I would be interested to see it. And if there is an improvement, shouldn't that be a project for something like Linux, where other databases could also benefit? It could just be implemented as a database-specific filesystem. Regards, Jeff Davis ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq