From: "Daniel P. Zepeda" Date: 2002-06-18T02:21:56+09:00 Subject: Re: Are Unix tools just slow? On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 14:34:17 +0900 Christopher Browne wrote: > A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Daniel P. Zepeda" > wrote:> I guess my real contribution to this > thread: I recently saw a post about> Ruby FAM. I thought it would be > cool to write a tool that kept the> filesystem information in an RDBMS, > like PostgreSQL, using FAM to keep it> updated, and also giving the > ability to update the actual filesystem when> the database is updated. > It would be really fast and easy to use with a> lot more features when > compared to slocate. I've started to give it a> shot, but what do you > all think? > > I think what you'd find is that the first time you did > SELECT * FROM FILES > it would be about as slow as running "find -print /" the first time. I agree. But I think you missed the point. It would only have to traverse the filesystem once, on installation, then after that FAM would keep it updated. > > Both are views on quite efficient database systems. > > The main difference where the RDBMS might gain a bit of extra speed > would be in that it would likely collect file data into a somewhat > more compact set of disk blocks. > > Modern developments have involved a lot of convergence between the way > filesystems work and the way relational databases work... > -- > (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc")) > http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html > "Never make any mistaeks." (Anonymous, in a mail discussion about to a > kernel bug report.) -- "Daniel P. Zepeda" (Remove commas for address)