News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on SQLite small blob storage: 35% Faster Than the Filesystem. Parent comment

Re:SQLite small blob storage: 35% Faster Than the Filesystem by troutaway123 on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @10:11AM (#14552827)
¿Porque no los dos?

Store the files in a database but expose them via FUSE.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SQLite small blob storage: 35% Faster Than the Filesystem by pjc50 on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @10:34AM (#14553001)
That gives you the time cost of a filesystem plus the time cost of a database plus an extra round-trip in and out of kernel space.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SQLite small blob storage: 35% Faster Than the Filesystem by troutaway123 on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @11:01AM (#14553221)
> preserving access to the toolchain which operates trivially with files was worth the additional performance overhead of working with the files

Sounds like they're OK with that.

In any case, couldn't you avoid the kernel trips with some dylib foolery (assuming the toolchain is dynamically linked)?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SQLite small blob storage: 35% Faster Than the Filesystem by firethief on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:39PM (#14554423)
So: store the files in a database, expose them via FUSE, bypass FUSE and access the database?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SQLite small blob storage: 35% Faster Than the Filesystem by troutaway123 on Saturday June 17, 2017 @01:15PM (#14576714)
Yep ;D
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SQLite small blob storage: 35% Faster Than the Filesystem by octetta on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @02:56PM (#14555096)
...or v9fs... but the overhead might make the whole exercise pointless.
[ Parent | on HN ]