Re: [HACKERS] [hackers]development suggestion needed

At 11:05 AM 1/14/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
>
>> So, what's the deal, here...is the goal the Big Time or not?
>
>If it means adopting one vendors concept of what the world should look
>like...not.

>I *hate* the way Oracle sets up tablespaces ... where i have to pre-guess
>the size of my data and allocate space accordingly...what if my table
>never does reach that critical mass?  I've just wasted X meg of space ...

And I'm not suggesting that anything like this level of (as I described
it in my previous note) anal retentive control be implemented.  Anal
retentive IT managers won't be happy unless they're paying Oracle
$25/power unit anyway.

But being able to spread tables and indices around several spindles
would improve scalability.  I think the very simple approach that's
been kicked around would work for anyone we care about (me!:)

I mentioned the Oracle details in part because it's not clear to me
how much folks here know about Oracle.  I don't know all that much,
only enough to know that any database that initializes its defaults
to useless values is a pain in the ass in ways that customers shouldn't
put up with.  I don't understand Oracle's approach, there, seducing you
into letting it build a default installation which is then virtually
useless.

>We haven't been designing a FreeOracle...

I'm certainly not arguing for this...remember, I did argue against
"(+)" in favor of SQL 92 outer joins :)

>I liked the thread about moving indexes and tables to seperate file
>systems, and hope we can implement something that will make it something
>that does't require 'ln's, but I definitely don't like Oracle's way of
>doing things ...

I agree...I was simply providing a datapoint, not suggesting it was one
Postgres should emulate.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.