4 ms·
You are confusing that databases implement their own filesystem equivalent functionality in an application-specific way with the idea that FS's can or should be
by foobiekr 1y ago
You are confusing that databases implement their own filesystem equivalent functionality in an application-specific way with the idea that FS's can or should be databases.
- Ericson2314 1y agoI am not confusing any such thing. You need to define "database" such that "file system" doesn't include it. Common usage does this by convention, but that's just sloppy thinking and populist extentional definitining. I posit that any rigorous, thought-out, not overfit intentional definition of a database will, as a matter of course, also include file systems.
- foobiekr 1y agoPerhaps so, but in the expansive definition you're using, even an in-memory binary tree qualifies as a database, which makes your point meaningless.
- Ericson2314 1y agoI'm OK including that — tmpfs is similar, but we can easily exclude that by requiring persistence. The intentional definition doesn't need to be expansive the point of being useless!
- aforwardslash 1y agoNitpick: An in-memory hash table can be a filesystem :)