Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:20372 comp.databases:1382 comp.sys.mac.programmer:2438
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!esosun!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hoff
From: hoff@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Tom Hoff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.databases,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Databases: distributed vs. monolithic file structure (was Re: FoxBase)
Summary: Are OS limitations on number of open files a concern?
Message-ID: <1506@hp-sdd.HP.COM>
Date: 16 Sep 88 03:32:18 GMT
References: <6178@dasys1.UUCP> <652@stech.UUCP>
Reply-To: hoff@hp-sdd.UUCP (Tom Hoff)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego
Lines: 20

>There is, however, a major problem with multi-file storage. You dare not
>change a file name, index name, etc., etc., without goofing up all your 
>application code. 

One point you forgot to mention is the number of files an OS or process is able
to have open at one time.  If a user process only gets 20 file handles, and 3
are used for each open table, it makes it pretty hard to join more than 6
tables.

Personally I prefer having each table and all of it's indices, etc. all in it's
own single file.  This allows reasonable conservation of finite OS resources,
and reasonable abstraction of the DBMS' internal structures (assuming the file
has the same name as the table).  Better yet, give the application programmer
the ability to specify the storage method, but independantly of the application
code.

--Tom
-- 
     Tom Hoff (...!hplabs!hp-sdd!hoff)
	"Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not a spokesman!"