[erlang-questions] ets:next/2 behavior - set vs. ordered_set

Joseph Norton <>
Sat Sep 17 00:23:08 CEST 2011


That is my understanding too.



On 2011/09/17, at 4:47, Bob Ippolito <> wrote:

> The main issues that I'm aware of are that a dets file can't be larger
> than 2GB, ordered_set isn't supported, repair is often not very fast,
> and the only way to defragment a table is to close it and re-open it
> with repair set to force (mostly a problem because of the 2GB limit).
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/dets.html
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Jon Watte <> wrote:
>> In what way is dets not production worthy?
>> Sincerely,
>> jw
>> 
>> --
>> Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living
>> standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless,
>> whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption
>> rates, because our present rates are unsustainable.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Joseph Norton <>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The basic goal is to build and test a production worthy replacement for
>>> ets with disk based storage.   After I have the basics in place, I can
>>> elaborate further.
>>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> 
>>> Joseph Norton
>>> 
>>> On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:55 AM, OvermindDL1 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Joseph Wayne Norton
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm currently developing a disk based clone of the ets application.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you elaborate how this is different from dets, or are you doing it
>>>> for learning?
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> erlang-questions mailing list
>>> 
>>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> 
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>> 
>> 



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list