On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:06:54PM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote: > Some might even argue that IBM (where Codd and Date worked) > and Oracle just _might_ have had justification for the huge effort > they put into developing such infrastructure.
The OS and FS world is very, very different now than it was when the Oracle and DB2 architectures were being crafted. What may have been an excellent development effort then may not provide such good ROI now. > Then there's the large library of research on caching strategies > in just about every HW and SW domain, including DB theory, > that points put that the more context dependent, ie application > or domain specific awareness, caching strategies are the better > they are. > > Maybe after we do all we can about physical IO and sorting > performance I'll take on the religious fanatics on this one. Actually, the main "religious fanatic" I've seen recently is yourself. While I have a gut feel that some of the issues you raise could certainly do with further investigation, I'm not seeing that much from you other than statements that muchof what postgresql does is wrong (not "wrong for your Ron's use case", but "wrong in every respect"). A little less arrogance and a little more "here are some possibilities for improvement", "here is an estimate of the amount of effort that might be needed" and "here are some rough benchmarks showing the potential return on that investment" would, at the very least, make the threads far less grating to read. Cheers, Steve ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq