pbxt-discuss team mailing list archive

[Tim Soderstrom <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:47 PM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:

>> 
>> Perhaps but I assume you're not running Facebook on DropBox :) Certainly there is still interesting use cases for RDBMS's and the engines therein. InnoDB has caught up so much that PBXT no longer has the edge, but I still find it very interesting. Were Paul to have the resources InnoDB does, I suspect PBXT would be significant.
> 
> I agree with you. If there were more resources behind PBXT it could
> have been very interesting. I don't know how much of it is
> log-structured compared to the original design but I was very
> interested in that. I blame myself and others who didn't have time to
> help Paul get this to market. I suspect that PBXT still has advantages
> compared to InnoDB on multi-core servers.

The log structure was very very cool, but I actually liked the hybrid approach Paul was doing with the fixed rows + log structure. It was quite elegant, although, being a casual observer in the whole process, it's hard for me to see the real impact of the design. Still, I found it very very cool.