3 ms·

Are database semantics not useful or well understood? There's also no ways to really make a file system faster when dealing with many small files and directori

by duped 3y ago

Are database semantics not useful or well understood? There's also no ways to really make a file system faster when dealing with many small files and directories. If you can avoid doing it by using a database you probably should.

Asraelite 3y ago
> Are database semantics not useful or well understood? Sort of, yeah. Consider how many command line programs will accept a file as an input parameter vs. how many will accept an SQL query. Existing tooling is predominantly designed to work with files so depending on what you're trying to accomplish, you may have a lot more work to do when using a database.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  That’s an interesting point, in terms of shrink wrapped software its easily 100x more software that will accept a file input.
- qubex 3y ago
  Well yes, but also it varies… on IBM AS/400 machines running OS/400 (currently iSeries if I’m not mistaken) the file system is basically a database and commands basically parse queries.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    And as well all know, an IBM AS/400 is the most common computer for serious software development in 2024.
    - qubex 3y ago
      Why bother staying silent when one can slide some sarcasm in, eh?
declaredapple 3y ago
> There's also no ways to really make a file system faster when dealing with many small files and directories. Depends on the file/directory structure. Traditionally back in the CGI days URI's were links to files on a server. They often still are for static files. If you know the path to a file then the lookup should be very fast. But yeah any other type of index other then the path isn't really possible.
- hawski 3y ago
  One can have separate directories with files hard or symbolic linked under different names.
- duped 3y ago
  There's still at least one more context switch than using a database, which dominates the performance for small files. The usage pattern matters more than the structure. That's not even mentioning synchronization costs to make it correct when the file system is mutable.

by duped 3y ago

Asraelite 3y ago

> Are database semantics not useful or well understood? Sort of, yeah. Consider how many command line programs will accept a file as an input parameter vs. how many will accept an SQL query. Existing tooling is predominantly designed to work with files so depending on what you're trying to accomplish, you may have a lot more work to do when using a database.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
That’s an interesting point, in terms of shrink wrapped software its easily 100x more software that will accept a file input.
qubex 3y ago
Well yes, but also it varies… on IBM AS/400 machines running OS/400 (currently iSeries if I’m not mistaken) the file system is basically a database and commands basically parse queries.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  And as well all know, an IBM AS/400 is the most common computer for serious software development in 2024.
  - qubex 3y ago
    Why bother staying silent when one can slide some sarcasm in, eh?

declaredapple 3y ago

> There's also no ways to really make a file system faster when dealing with many small files and directories. Depends on the file/directory structure. Traditionally back in the CGI days URI's were links to files on a server. They often still are for static files. If you know the path to a file then the lookup should be very fast. But yeah any other type of index other then the path isn't really possible.

hawski 3y ago
One can have separate directories with files hard or symbolic linked under different names.
duped 3y ago
There's still at least one more context switch than using a database, which dominates the performance for small files. The usage pattern matters more than the structure. That's not even mentioning synchronization costs to make it correct when the file system is mutable.