Grim

Please help with this question that is closed: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56899

@BillerBuilder This bounding can be ignored if you store the binary data in the db.

Maybe tomorrow

Did you noticed the files have the same path and name? I like to be sure that this fact did catch your attention. Uniqueness, you are bound in absolute-file-paths in every os (almost every I guess).

hi, sorry I am late

Please do not compare your incremental backups with my full-backup. I can do incremental backups in postgres faster too having the same speed as your incremental backup. About find using os-specific commands, how do you differ entry #1 having filename "/a.txt" (2 bytes) from entry#2 having filename "/a.txt" (9 bytes)? You can not using file-references. You need os-specific-commands as well as a path is os-specific c:\t.txt and /t.txt differ. You can not order them, you need to use os-specific commands. Please do not be rude, I am new at dba.

I agree that a incremental backup might be faster. I am not trolling. If you think I am trolling, you should report this to a admin.

general professional consensus is a sophism (argumentum ad verecundiam). too much subjectivity & incorrectness is a sohpism (ignoring the counterevidence). what you said 2x a sophism (special pleading).

List files in Windows is dir in linux is ls. Do you agree? Its os-specific. How do you find files in linux? find -name "t.txt" or locate t.txt. in windows find "t.txt"(without -name). You see, they differ, thats your best prime example? It does not matter what os the sql-db runs in, you always use the same SQL, it might even not matter what vendor the sql server is. A backup that include sql and the files is as fast as backup them seperatly, but less work-complex and less error-prone and you are not forced to store ownership/perm and path.

You dont need a complex secure and backup plan than "just backup the db", you automatically have a network-filesystem, you have easy statictis source for the overall-storage-requirement, you can balance the datasource across nodes easier than on file-systems, you can order, index and find files by name or/and size without having os-specific find commands faster and easier. You can consistent guarantee no ambiguity in a db but never using files. A unique filename is no precondition in the same folder. Windows does not create unexpected thumbs.db files, linux does not create .trash-folders.

My dbs queries does not going slower. I would not say it bloats the database, I would say it sovles the single-source-of-truth. I am happy with the fact that a backup of the database also backups the referenced files, so the backup have no broken-file-references, let me phrase it as corrupted foreign-keys. The redundancy is a db-design problem. A file forces you to solve the owner/permission-problem, it is not acid since its there (or not) indepnednendly of the commit, it forces you to have a directory, it forces you to think about vulnerability (unpack petabytes in a 1kb zip, ADS bullshit etc

Why do you think a filesystem is better for files? I see only downsides.

For me a system is considered to be finished booting when the system has successfully finished compleatly runlevel 2 but not even a bit touched runlevel 3.

@MarcusMüller Wait, only the boot-sequence is slow. After booting everything else is fast as hell!

You said: "oha! that's not good. It should take fractions of a second to start postgresql", yes, it took under one second. And that was the slowest candidate. You asked for the slowest. I answered correctly: postgres was the slowest.

I added the output of sudo systemd-analyze critical-chain multi-user.target.

I added the storage device benchmark to the question.

The boot lags from beginning. And it does not lag in ubuntu-desktop 22.10. And it is only a 1 Megabyte database. I think this is going into the wrong direction.

Its a 1 megabyte database, I dont think that the first step in boot is to make sure postgres is working.

@MarcusMüller Most time took postgresql.

@Duga Yea but there is a bug in the community does not let me post questions even if I have only positive reputations.

In a genetic alg. I have no accepable results in 450 generations. My mutation per generation is to change only one command of a command-block of about 200 commands.

I maybe can ask here?

"Sorry, we are no longer accepting questions from this account. See the Help Center to learn more."

Hey fellows. Why can I not ask questions anymore?

@ThomasOwens Thank you. AFAIK some think about rename programmers.stackexchange to swarchitects or something.

Thank you

Picky hm? I had +15 by 3 times upvote.

Hm, while opening a new question i got a message what i guess i did not get before: "Wait! Some of your past questions have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from asking any more.". Maybe your upvote did the trick.

:D

@Mast No, its my private one who noone else has access to. But meta.stackexchange.com/q/86997/269301 already told me to not share computer because of ipbased userfilter. So your hint is a duplicate of the message i really really read carefully!

Yes. Still odd.

"No deleted recent questions"

oh, not sure, i mean yes

sure

Nope, 2 upvotes

Ok, why?

:,(

Not accepting questions from this account anymore

Yes

Hi there, any idea why i can not ask questions anymore?

It is not allowed to have a embassy there en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…