Well, I've written re-written an old BBS program.  Right now it holds it's
messages in individual text files (really marshaled object files).

I can't begin to tell you how much this sucks.

So, I'm moving it all to sql.  I have a table which is a message board.  the
messages are records.  each message has a unique number used as a new
message index.  each user has a pointer to that record.

I need to be able to go up and down the sql table, reading individual
messages in each direction, and be able to jump to a message by number, etc.
Right now I am making a array of the message numbers, and looking up the
messages that way.

So if I want message 4 in the list, which is really message 3219, because
the ones before it have been deleted, then I ask the array...

index_tbl[message] = whatever the number I should pull out of the table is.

I got the index_tbl by doing a select on the board table, ordered by the
message number.

Anyway, before each operation, I have to rebuild the table, because the
whole thing is multi-user... and someone else might have done  something
like add or delete a message.  it works fine when there are a few messages,
but I'm not sure how it will perform when it hits 1000's of messages.

My friend pointed me at postresql... it seems lean and fast.

Thanks for your help!

mark



"But Schindler is bueno! Senior Burns is El Diablo!"

--------------------------------------------------------------
Website     - http://www.retrobbs.org
Tradewars - telnet tradewars.retrobbs.org
BBS          - http://bbs.retrobbs.org:8000
IRC           - irc.retrobbs.org #main
WIKI        - http://www.tpoh.org/cgi-bin/tpoh-wiki

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Neumann" <mneumann / ntecs.de>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: ruby postgresql question


> Mark Firestone wrote:
> > That is entirely possible (;
> >
> > I'm not sure if that is the way to do it or not.  My SQL is not the
> > greatest.
>
> Can you explain again, what exactly is your problem.
> Are there performance problems with getting the whole query result set
> at once?
>
> Postgres is a good choice ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
>    Michael
>
>