On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The following was sent to me. Does it fit our needs anywhere? Let's
> discuss it.
Did we ever go anywhere on this one? I just got into mp3's here
at home...something like this might be cool for that, or for large images
libraries?
>
>
> >
> > I wrote an indexed file system some time ago in ANSI C. I've compiled
> > and used it on several platforms, but have never aspired to do very much
> > with it. I'm not really the marketing type, and I don't want to compete
> > with existing standards.
> >
> > I wonder if it could make any contribution to the PostgreSQL effort?
> > Here are the pluses and minuses:
> >
> > - Pluses:
> > - 1-255 single-part keys
> > - 1-65535 key size anywhere in the record
> > - 1-65535 record size
> > - No limit on number of records
> > - Fixed or variable record lengths
> > - 2GB maximum file size
> > - Overhead per record in bytes = 12 * number of keys
> > - Reclaims deleted record space (all for fixed length records, >= for
> > variable)
> > - Bi-directional traversals
> > - Portability
> >
> > - Minuses:
> > - File locking, not record locking (only one record may be written at
> > a time)
> > - Trees are not balanced (could end up as a linked list in worst
> > case). This implies the need for maintenence.
> > - There may be others...?
> >
> >
> > Maybe it could do strange sorts or handle BLOBs. If you think it could
> > make a contribution I'd be willing to learn and work on the appropriate
> > code. You're welcome to a copy of it or any additional information you
> > might want.
> >
>
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian
> maillist@candle.pha.pa.us
>
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org