Re: [HACKERS] embedded postgresql
Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... It also seems quite curious why in-process embedding should be so attractive; People seem not to care whether or not the RDBMS runs in-process or in a separately forked process. The attribute that concerns them is that the RDBMS is requires zero configuration. There is no separate server process to install, configure, initialize, and administer. An application using a zero-configuration database engine just works. No need to run a setup wizard to get it going. No need to pester your system administrator to create a new user on the database server. Just copy over the executable, run it, and it works. Another way to think about it is that an embedded RDBMS is not necessarily a replacement for a traditional client/server database, but rather a replacement for fopen() and friends accessing an ad hoc text file. Using an embedded database is better than fopen() in that it provides a schema layer and ACID transactions. There are many applications for which the traditional client/server database architecture with the server running in a separate process is definately the best approach. But there are just as many other uses for which an embedded database engine works best. For example, an embedded database engine which stores the database in a single orginary disk file can be used as an application file format. The File/Open menu option creates a connection to the database file. File/Save commits the changes. The application reads and writes using ordinary SQL. Afterwards, the user can email the resulting database to a friend. Client/server database engines will not easily do this kind of stuff. Client/server database engines clearly have their place. But they are not always the best solution to every data storage problem. Expand your horizons. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] embedded postgresql
Clinging to sanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mumbled into her beard: I would like to know if there are any discussions about creating an embedded version on postgresql. My thoughts go towards building/porting a sqlite equivalent of pg. People periodically drive by and suggest that PostgreSQL would become fabulously better (or fabulously more popular) if it were rewritten to do an in-process embedding of it. There is little enthusiasm for the idea, as it would substantially reduce the robustness of the system. It also seems quite curious why in-process embedding should be so attractive; it _looks_ as though most of the people that are so excited about this idea have a pretty defective understanding of Unix, and have missed the point that spawning extra processes to do different kinds of work is a FEATURE. The people with that defective understanding generally go away unsatisfied. If you really and truly want an embedded database, then you really should look at Berkeley DB and SQLite. They may save you a bit of memory if you only have one application that can make use of a database. If you have a second application, or perhaps more than two, it's pretty likely that linking to libpq and talking to a full-fledged server will be a win. -- (format nil [EMAIL PROTECTED] cbbrowne ntlug.org) http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html ... it's just that in C++ and the like, you don't trust _anybody_, and in CLOS you basically trust everybody. the practical result is that thieves and bums use C++ and nice people use CLOS. -- Erik Naggum ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] embedded postgresql
D. Richard Hipp wrote: Client/server database engines clearly have their place. But they are not always the best solution to every data storage problem. Nobody has suggested otherwise AFAICS. What we have suggested is that a client/server system is a bad place to start when looking for an embedded storage system. Personally, I tend to use Postgres for client/server and BDB for embedded data management. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] embedded postgresql
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 09:49:47AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Sirs, I would like to know if there are any discussions about creating an embedded version on postgresql. My thoughts go towards building/porting a sqlite equivalent of pg. The discussion comes up occasionally. After some well-reasoned analysis the conclusion is generally that an embedded postgresql would keep either none of the advantages of postgresql or would lose most of the (single-user specific) advantages of an embedded database. Or both. In other words, postgresql is a really bad place to start if you want to make an embedded database. If you search the list archives you should find the last time this was discussed. Cheers, Steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] embedded postgresql
GB: I would like to know if there are any discussions about creating an embedded version on postgresql. My thoughts go towards building/porting a sqlite equivalent of pg. Not that I personally know of.While it would be nice to have an embeddable database which was syntax-compatible with PostgreSQL, it would be so radically different codewise as to be a completely different project. Probably the only thing you'd re-use would be the query parser code. At a guess, you'd probably be better off trying to weld out query parser to BerkeleyDB or something than to try to downsize the PG code. If you do, though, please let us know, and feel free to host it at pgFoundry. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
[HACKERS] embedded postgresql
Dear Sirs, I would like to know if there are any discussions about creating an embedded version on postgresql. My thoughts go towards building/porting a sqlite equivalent of pg. Regards, GB. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
[HACKERS] Embedded postgresql
Dear Sirs, I would like to know if there are any discussions about creating an embedded version on postgresql. My thoughts go towards building/porting a sqlite equivalent of pg. Regards, GB. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] Embedded postgresql
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to know if there are any discussions about creating an embedded version on postgresql. My thoughts go towards building/porting a sqlite equivalent of pg. Yes, there have been several. Peruse the archives: http://archives.postgresql.org/ -- dave ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
