Rob Browning wrote:
>
> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At work, we make use of Access for some "departmental applications;"
> > the conclusion that I'm coming to is that its "embedded data store"
> > is not robust enough for anything more important than "not the
> > faintest bit important."
>
> This is something I've wondered, not being a big database person
> myself. Is there some technical reason why no one has ever
> implemented a free "database in a directory" system?
A couple of reasons -
*) most file systems don't handle the "lots of very small files in a
directory" very well.
*) You don't get many of the other nice db features
-) fast key lookup
-) relational model (vrs hierarchical for a filesystem)
-) complex data joins
*) There's a couple of reasonable small packages out there now. E.g.
dbm, MySQL, etc.
btw. this is exactly one of the reasons behind the development of
Reiserfs. It's supposed to allow you to store lots of small bits of
hierarchical info, such as broken out config files, in "filename = key,
contents = value" scheme, and do it efficently.
-- Pat
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
