Dieter Maurer dieter@handshake.de
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:43:05 +0200

Terry Hancock wrote at 2003-6-25 10:34 -0700:
 > ... ZODB/FileStorags flaw ...
 > 1) Its structure, being object based, is not as 
 > straightforward to understand ... as a relational database

It can't hardly be more complicated than "outer joins", for example ;-)

A relational database essentially supports a single data type:
a two dimensional table. The ZODB supports an openly extensible
set of data types. This might be considered "less straightforward
to understand". It definitely is not a flaw.

 > ...
 > 2) It lacks really good diagnostic and repair tools 
 > compared with real filesystems (which includes any Linux or 
 > DOS filesystem -- against which it compares poorly in this 
 > respect).

They are almost unneeded because the FileStorage structure
is so trivial that almost nothing can go wrong (software errors apart).
Even a complete crash usually does not destroy it (unlike older
Unix or even the DOS file system).

 > There *are* a couple of tools, but I have to 
 > admit I don't really know how to use them.

Can I interprete this as you did not yet felt the need to really
look into them, because your FileStorage was not yet corrupted?

 > 3) On some systems (I don't think all, but I could be 
 > wrong) it will have a 2-gigabyte limit.

FileStorage does not have this limit.

Your Python interpreter might be compiled without large
file system support. Use one that is not.

 > ...
 > 4) Because there are fewer users and it is intrinsically 
 > more complex and it is newer, ZODB is not be as well tested 
 > as run-of-the-mill SQL databases.

I met more severe bugs in Oracle (8i) than in ZODB.

 > ...