Will whatever Node sanity you arrive at be three separate thingy's? Or all one
blob sort of thing? I'm hoping for three separate thing-a-ma-bobs or
(do-hickys:-). When you guys mention space conservation in your discussions, I
get a little squeamish. SQL DBs piss disk away like beer at a football game. Am
I going to get beat about the head and shoulder for their wastefulness? I was
planing on keeping this ID as a number in the SQL Tables. But I don't want to
argue about it. I will do strings if you guys want me to. One thing I do prefer
is that I keep any (ID/or potentially indexed sort of thing) a fixed length if
possible. Some DBs have the ability to widen a column on the fly if needed or you
can always export then import to the wider columns.
I've been getting my DB dev environment sorted out. I have resurrected (Twice,
damn disk drives) a Sparc Ultra10 with Ultra2 SCSI drives running Oracle 9i and
MySQL 4.0.1. I may put up PostGres as well. Anyhoo. It will serve only as my DB
I want to give ODBC a run around the block. I've never used it before but there
seems to be many recent improvements under 3.51.x. I've always used PRO C or
MySql's native interface from my C code. However, the bulk of my DB usage has
been from Java (JDBC) and Perl (DBI). ODBC feels more like them to me. Plus the
Management layer may come in handy. Given all the heated debates over performance
I thought I would give the list an oportunity to veto ODBC before I waste any
time evaluating it. My mind is hardly made up. I thought some of the Windows
guys might want to way in. I've always understoood them to be the biggest users
I have to run. I'll check back to the list later tonight.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Stein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Also, Greg, you argued for txn keys to be base36 when you were here in
> > > Chicago last. Well, not "argued", because we all agreed with you, but
> > > you were in fact the person who emphasized it first.
> > Wha??!?! Um, no. If I *really* did, then I was smoking crack because that
> > certainly isn't what we want to build.
> Oh -- hunh, I do remember it pretty clearly, but since you don't
> really hold that position, it probably means I misunderstood what you
> were saying at the time.
> > Base-36 (or your suggestion for base-62) is way beyond the insane.
> > Completely non-standard in all respects, none of the speed Brane was talking
> > about with base-16 encoding, and still obfuscates the underlying integer
> > that these keys are derived from.
> Base 36 is what I'd like to do; I've already presented the reasons.
> Calling it "way beyond insane" doesn't add any substance to the
> > Work out the math. If you manage to *sustain* one per second, you've got 136
> > years worth (unsigned 32-bit number). You'll definitely burst at times, but
> > a sustained rate of one per second, year after year, is absolutely amazing.
> > Running out is simply not going to happen. If there is any possible scenario
> > where we believe that 4 billion transactions will actually occur, then hell:
> > make it an apr_uint64_t.
> This is not "amazing" at all. Not only humans use repositories; other
> programs will start using them too. And Moore's Law still held last
> time I checked. Why not make *sure* the problem is solved, once and
> for all? It's trivial for us to do -- I know, because I did it for
> txns already and it was no effort -- it doesn't affect performance in
> any meaningful way, and (for me at least, don't know about others)
> improves maintainability by not implying ordering when there is no
> ordering going on, and by making IDs a bit more readable.
> When the designers of IPv6 considered network address allocation
> (which was already supposed to be more than enough at 32 bits, years
> ago when IPv4 was designed), they jumped all the way to 128 bits,
> wisely skipping 64. They realized that the *rate* of consumption can
> increase unexpectedly -- since it already happened once, as everyone
> and their toaster started wanting an IP address. (Nevertheless,
> within our lifetimes I expect to see debates about how to handle the
> impending exhaustion of 128 bits.)
> +1 on base36 with `const char *'; -1 on integers whatever the
> I believe we've both presented our complete arguments for and against.
> If you have something new and constructive to add, please do! FUD
> like "way beyond insane" and "completely non-standard in all respects"
> doesn't count :-).
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat May 11 22:47:03 2002