From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <008701c3efb2$d613e0f0$8201a8c0@cc77109e> From: "Bruce Ellis" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: <5e14e61cf2.61cf25e14e@rutgers.edu> <1076327836.26503.66.camel@zevon> <00fb01c3ef06$69baadf0$67844051@SOMA> <1076330831.26503.143.camel@zevon> <25583AA5-5B77-11D8-B188-000A95E29604@nas.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 and PR MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:36:00 +1100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: dbb43326-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 flat files work fine under most "not huge" datasets. check out how fortune works for a good fixed-sized record solution (i think td did it). i wrote my db under 32V back in the hippie days. it was an ingress into ingress - cause it was a zillion times faster. (i used those things called algorithms.) i commercialized my ideas and sold a few (at really quite stupidly high a price). the new one is better, far better, and in limbo. brucee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Johnson" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 and PR > Librarians might be tempted to buy Microsoft if they didn't have to > roll their own catalogue in Excel or Access.