Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Architectural implications of locate mode I/O
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 07:43:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <v6g5b0$phk7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v61jeh$k6d$1@gal.iecc.com> <1bed88y8na.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net>
	<v69jgf$1lg1$1@gal.iecc.com> <87frsnwbd5.fsf@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:43:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6833f357ca2f81f4fc0c202b06d2229d";
	logging-data="837255"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+w31lAefG1RMzZN/5iqQHK"
User-Agent: Pan/0.158 (Avdiivka; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ArWo2ts0K2iABLXzD/B0vPSz630=
Bytes: 1370

On Fri, 05 Jul 2024 15:35:50 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> The IMS group were complaining that RDBMS had twice the disk space (for
> RDBMS index) and increased the number of disk I/Os by 4-5 times (for
> processing RDBMS index). Counter was that the RDBMS index significantly
> reduced the manual maintenance (compared to IMS).

Did IMS have a locate mode as well?