gavinlaking/2012-08-05 1815

## 2012-08-05 1815
If we should store assets on the filesystem rather than in the database because access is faster, then why are we not storing data on the filesystem rather than in a database? A database typically consists of a couple of files, one being the hunk of data itself, the others, supporting files like indicies.

So, why not use the filesystem as it was designed: direct and flexible. Store our data using the right tool for the job. I can't think of anything that an off-the-shelf database ACIDically provides that our filesystems can not already do.

Consistency may be lacking, from the respects of ensuring that a file is as it says (size, contents, etc), however, is it not the job of those wishing to store data to ensure it is correct before persistence? i.e garbage in, garbage out.

## 2012-08-05 18:15
If we should store assets on the filesystem rather than in the database because access is faster, then why are we not storing data on the filesystem rather than in a database? A database typically consists of a couple of files, one being the hunk of data itself, the others, supporting files like indicies.

So, why not use the filesystem as it was designed: direct and flexible. Store our data using the right tool for the job. I can't think of anything that an off-the-shelf database ACIDically provides that our filesystems can not already do.

Consistency may be lacking, from the respects of ensuring that a file is as it says (size, contents, etc), however, is it not the job of those wishing to store data to ensure it is correct before persistence? i.e garbage in, garbage out.

## 2012-08-05_1815.md

      
    Raw
  

              2012-08-05_1815.md
            
          
    If we should store assets on the filesystem rather than in the database because access is faster, then why are we not storing data on the filesystem rather than in a database? A database typically consists of a couple of files, one being the hunk of data itself, the others, supporting files like indicies.
So, why not use the filesystem as it was designed: direct and flexible. Store our data using the right tool for the job. I can't think of anything that an off-the-shelf database ACIDically provides that our filesystems can not already do.
Consistency may be lacking, from the respects of ensuring that a file is as it says (size, contents, etc), however, is it not the job of those wishing to store data to ensure it is correct before persistence? i.e garbage in, garbage out.
	If we should store assets on the filesystem rather than in the database because access is faster, then why are we not storing data on the filesystem rather than in a database? A database typically consists of a couple of files, one being the hunk of data itself, the others, supporting files like indicies.

	So, why not use the filesystem as it was designed: direct and flexible. Store our data using the right tool for the job. I can't think of anything that an off-the-shelf database ACIDically provides that our filesystems can not already do.

	Consistency may be lacking, from the respects of ensuring that a file is as it says (size, contents, etc), however, is it not the job of those wishing to store data to ensure it is correct before persistence? i.e garbage in, garbage out.