> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Michael A. Olson wrote:
>
> > Rather than replacing just the storage manager, you'd be replacing
> > the access methods, buffer manager, transaction manager, and some
> > of the shared memory plumbing with our stuff.
>
> So, basically, we rip out 3+ years or work on our backend and put an SQL
> front-end over top of BerkleyDB?
Well, if we look at our main componients,
parser/rewrite/optimizer/executor, they stay pretty much the same. It
is the lower level stuff that would change.
Now, no one is suggesting we do this. The issue is exploring what gains
we could make in doing this.
I would hate to throw out our code, but I would also hate to not make
change because we think our code is better without objectively judging
ours against someone else's.
In the end, we may find that the needs of a database for storage are
different enough that SDB would not be a win, but I think it is worth
exploring to see if that is true.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026