Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

wilcosky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#71

Post by timClicks »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #49
GuB-42 wrote: post #30

Maybe it is just a reflection on the state of filesystems vs databases. There is no fundamental difference between a database and a flat file, it is all bytes on a disk/memory in the end. So it is mostly a question of balancing the roles of the hardware, OS, and application software. For example, if the reason you are using a database is that it does a particularly good job at limiting disk IO, then it may not be nec…

> There is no fundamental difference between a database and a flat file, it is all bytes on a disk/memory in the end. A database has a whole engine, which I'd argue is a pretty fundamental difference. I think I get what you were trying to say, though: there's no fundamental difference between database tables and flat files, and there's no fundamental difference between a database and a filesystem.

File systems are also "whole engines". Otherwise we wouldn't have named files or directory structures.

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#72

Post by RedShift1 »

Xunjin wrote: post #61
RedShift1 wrote: post #18

uncle roger voice just use SQLite haiyaaaaa

I'd love watch a uncle Roger programming-wise reviews.

sees unparameterized SQL query being written no no no no no no haiyaaah uncle roger had to put down foot from chair

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#73

Post by joebob42 »

malux85 wrote: post #70
pixl97 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portability to other systems.

Portability is more important than guaranteed atomicity, consistency, isolation and durability?

I mean, not always, but I can certainly imagine cases where it might be.

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#74

Post by hunter2_ »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #49
GuB-42 wrote: post #30

Maybe it is just a reflection on the state of filesystems vs databases. There is no fundamental difference between a database and a flat file, it is all bytes on a disk/memory in the end. So it is mostly a question of balancing the roles of the hardware, OS, and application software. For example, if the reason you are using a database is that it does a particularly good job at limiting disk IO, then it may not be nec…

> There is no fundamental difference between a database and a flat file, it is all bytes on a disk/memory in the end. A database has a whole engine, which I'd argue is a pretty fundamental difference. I think I get what you were trying to say, though: there's no fundamental difference between database tables and flat files, and there's no fundamental difference between a database and a filesystem.

> there's no fundamental difference between database tables and flat files

But "flat" essentially means "one table that doesn't reference (and isn't referenced by) other tables in a reliable way." It's a way of saying 2 dimensions (flat) versus 3+ dimensions (relational). The moment you start having multiple plain text files where columns act as primary and foreign keys, the system is no longer flat, despite using plain text files.

It seems to me that TFA and most comments here are really just talking about using a DBMS vs using plain text files, not using flat vs using relations.

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#75

Post by therealdrag0 »

pixl97 wrote: post #62
DeathArrow wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A database can be relational, it can make some guarantees, it can pass Acid. With a file you are responsible for performance, reliability, integrity and security of the data. Do you believe that you can do a better job than those tens of guys who contributed to a DBMS? Go ahead. Do you not need reliability, integrity, security, performance? Go ahead. So use a file to store data instead of database but know the trade-…

Portability to other systems.

What kind of portability? Why isn’t a db portable?

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#76

Post by JPLeRouzic »

ra33o wrote: post #36

I can recommend HTMLy and automad. HTMLy can easily work with 20.000 posts, without any noteworthy slowdown.

I concur. I am using HTMLy for my blog since 3 years and it is really a nice infrastructure. At the same time, it is simple and powerful.

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#77

Post by mkleczek »

GuB-42 wrote: post #30

Maybe it is just a reflection on the state of filesystems vs databases. There is no fundamental difference between a database and a flat file, it is all bytes on a disk/memory in the end. So it is mostly a question of balancing the roles of the hardware, OS, and application software. For example, if the reason you are using a database is that it does a particularly good job at limiting disk IO, then it may not be nec…

This opinion is quite popular nowadays but IMHO it is caused by misunderstanding what a database and database management system is and what it is for.

DBMS (and in particular) RDBMS is not a merely persistence medium for an application - DBMS main role is to _share_ data between applications.

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#78

Post by Blackthorn »

OJFord wrote: post #50
GuB-42 wrote: post #30

Maybe it is just a reflection on the state of filesystems vs databases. There is no fundamental difference between a database and a flat file, it is all bytes on a disk/memory in the end. So it is mostly a question of balancing the roles of the hardware, OS, and application software. For example, if the reason you are using a database is that it does a particularly good job at limiting disk IO, then it may not be nec…

For me it's about proprietary vs. readable - unless it's obviously necessary for performance I think I'd still prefer 'flat file' to sqlite, but basically I just want something that isn't an incomprehensible blob, that I can use with other tools etc. Bonus points for some open standard, but some kind of understandable format even if proprietary is miles ahead of proprietary and cryptic. I wish Fusion360 for example h…

> I wish Fusion360 for example had a sanely git-able on-disk format like:

There are two standards for this common to CAD, called IGES and STEP. They are both plaintext, though their gittability is questionable.

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#79

Post by hemmert »

I can‘t recommend Kirby enough:

https://www.getkirby.com

I built many of my (project) websites with it,

https://www.humangodinterfaces.com

https://www.perspectives-in-play.com

https://www.fabianhemmert.com

https://www.escape-team.com

it‘s blazingly fast (performance-wise and in terms of building your site), super easy to customize and I never missed my database.

Re: Smaller is better – The rise, fall, and rise of flat file software

#80

Post by jqpabc123 »

Flat file is more suited toward small, well defined with simple integration requirements. A lot of simple web sites and services fall into this category.

If there is any possible need to integrate into a larger overall system in ways that have yet to be fully imagined or defined, a DBMS might be a better option.

Post reply on HN