Tom Lane wrote:
> James Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If we suddenly wanted to optimize Postgres for performance the way
> > Oracle does, we would be a lot more keen on the O_DIRECT approach.
>
> This isn't ever going to happen, for the simple reason that we don't
> have Oracle's manpower
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>James Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>If we suddenly wanted to optimize Postgres for performance the way
>>>Oracle does, we would be a lot more keen on the O_DIRECT approach.
>>This isn't ever going to happen, for the simple reaso
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I have wondered (somewhat fruitlessly) for several years about the
possibilities of special purpose lightweight file systems that could
relax some of the assumptions and checks used in general purpose file
systems. Such a thing might provide most of the benefits of a
"dat
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> I tend to agree with the opinion that Oracle's architecture
Tom> is based on twenty-year-old assumptions. Back then it was
Tom> reasonable to assume that database-specific algorithms could
Tom> outperform a general-purpose o
James Rogers kirjutas K, 15.10.2003 kell 11:26:
> On 10/14/03 11:31 PM, "James Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > There is some abstraction in Postgres and the database is well-written, but
> > it isn't written in a manner that makes it easy to swap out operating system
> > or API models.
Tom Lane wrote:
James Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If we suddenly wanted to optimize Postgres for performance the way
Oracle does, we would be a lot more keen on the O_DIRECT approach.
This isn't ever going to happen, for the simple reason that we don't
have Oracle's manpower.
[sn
James Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we suddenly wanted to optimize Postgres for performance the way
> Oracle does, we would be a lot more keen on the O_DIRECT approach.
This isn't ever going to happen, for the simple reason that we don't
have Oracle's manpower. You are blithely throwing
> Of course, the big question is why Oracle is even there talking to
> Linus, and Linus isn't asking to get PostgreSQL involved. If you are
> running an open-source project, you would think you would give favor to
> other open-source projects. Same with MySQL favortism --- if you are
> writing an
Greg Stark wrote:
>
> James Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Someone from Oracle is on there explaining what Oracle's needs are. Perhaps
> > > someone more knowledgable than myself could explain what would most help
> > > postgres in this area.
> >
> >
> > There is an important dif
On 10/14/03 11:31 PM, "James Rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is some abstraction in Postgres and the database is well-written, but
> it isn't written in a manner that makes it easy to swap out operating system
> or API models. It is written to be portable at all levels. A database
>
On 10/14/03 8:26 PM, "Greg Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All the more reason Postgres's view of the world should maybe be represented
> there. As it turns out Linus seems unsympathetic to the O_DIRECT approach and
> seems more interested in building a better kernel interface to control cac
James Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Someone from Oracle is on there explaining what Oracle's needs are. Perhaps
> > someone more knowledgable than myself could explain what would most help
> > postgres in this area.
>
>
> There is an important difference between Oracle and Postgres
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 15:13, Greg Stark wrote:
> There's an interesting thread on linux-kernel right now about O_DIRECT and the
> kernel i/o APIs databases need. I noticed a connection between what they were
> discussing and the earlier discussions here and the pining for an interface to
> avoid ha
13 matches
Mail list logo
