4 ms·
Filesystems often aren't very efficient at lots of small files. If they could handle compressed archives transparently then an array of files, maybe extended f
by mjevans 2y ago
Filesystems often aren't very efficient at lots of small files.
If they could handle compressed archives transparently then an array of files, maybe extended from the old windows URL= style files, might work.
An SQLite file also sounds like a great way of handling URLs, which Firefox does:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/464516/firefox-bookmarks-sqlite-structure https://stackoverflow.com/questions/464516/firefox-bookmarks...
- josephernest 2y agoEfficiency/performance questions would be important if we would process thousands of such files per second, but this is not the case, or is it? We read/write these .url files at a pace of maybe 1 file per second maximum, if we are browsing fast, and want to save many bookmarks in a short time. IMHO filesystem efficiency questions never arise for bookmarks of a user of a computer. If one day you want to do some data mining on your 10k bookmarks, it will probably take < 1 second, even if done with Python. Do you see a real-life situation for which reading a .url in 1 µs instead of 100 µs would make any difference? (If you're speaking about search/querying, then the OS search feature does it for us)
- notatakenname 2y ago[dead]