Linus has a way with words.

Posted Apr 8, 2005 15:27 UTC (Fri) by StevenCole (guest, #3068)
Parent article: Linus codes up a patch manager

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, [a well-intentioned kernel hacker] wrote:
> 
> Why not to use sql as backend instead of the tree of directories?

Because it sucks? 

I can come up with millions of ways to slow things down on my own. Please 
come up with ways to speed things up instead.

		Linus

Linus has a way with words.

Posted Apr 8, 2005 17:04 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (3 responses)

Why not use SQL? Because a content-addressable design means it's easier to use a distributed hash table. Don't download every patch ever--just run a node and pull what you need out of the "cloud".

Linus has a way with words.

Posted Apr 11, 2005 7:42 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

For those people who aren't professional database programmers ...

SQL is a query language meant to address relational databases. But the pro relational guys hate SQL with a vengeance because it ISN'T relational.

And for those people here who remember me, I think relational is crap because, despite all the claims that "it is built on maths", when I read C&D's twelve rules, all I see is a list of requirements to make the database programmer guy's life easier (that's the guy writing the database engine, not the guy writing programs that use the engine).

A quick challenge - take a look at the twelve rules, and see if you can find ONE that could reasonably be taken to be a mathematical axiom, rather than a "constraint of convenience".

Cheers,
Wol

Linus has a way with words.

Posted Apr 11, 2005 8:59 UTC (Mon) by jdv (guest, #712) [Link] (1 responses)

> take a look at the twelve rules

Could you post a link?

Linus has a way with words.

Posted Apr 11, 2005 14:29 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

http://www.itworld.com/nl/db_mgr/05072001/pf_index.html

(as found by Google :-)

Actually, I think I'd probably classify just *one* as an axiom - all data must have an unambiguous reference.

The rest of it simply defines what makes a relational (as opposed to any other) database. A bit like Euclid's "parallel lines never meet" defines the *sub*set of geometry that is Euclidean, but does not define geometry itself (and, in defining a subset, defines itself as a constraint not an axiom).

Cheers,
Wol