From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Dyson Subject: Re: Separating Indexing and Searching (was silent semantic changes with reiser4) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:22:20 -0400 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4133EEEC.50201@pobox.com> References: <96515990355-BeMail@cr593174-a> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Return-path: Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.60]:59863 "EHLO smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266352AbUHaDWV (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:22:21 -0400 To: "Alexander G. M. Smith" In-Reply-To: <96515990355-BeMail@cr593174-a> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Alexander G. M. Smith wrote: > That brings up a good point, should the queries be allowed to run across > file systems or be restricted to just one? BeOS was restricted to one > file system (the query evaluation code was file system specific) and > faked it for multiple ones at the user level by repeating the query on > each FS. A separate Query FS wouldn't have that limit (or could fake > it at the kernel level), if the kernel/FSs exported their indices and > change notifications. I don't see any fundamental reason why filesystem boundaries couldn't be crossed. A separate Query FS could even fake it by scrubbing the disk with /usr/bin/find for filesystems that didn't export indices. Probably a bad idea, of course. But painfully slow execution is not a reason it _couldn't_ be done. Some people even like pain... -- Will Dyson "Back off man, I'm a scientist!" -Dr. Peter Venkman