[erlang-questions] discussion: mnesia table-specific options

Dave Smith dizzyd@REDACTED
Mon Dec 20 15:13:02 CET 2010

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Ulf Wiger
<ulf.wiger@REDACTED> wrote:
> I think that conceptually, it would seem good to keep the
> ram_copies, disc_copies and disc_only_copies, regardless of
> back-end, since they address higher-level access characteristics
> (e.g. TokyoCabinet is, strictly speaking, also disc_only.)

So are you describing a new parameter for "backend" or is that the
intention of "external_copies"?

> A form of behaviour option could then be added that gives
> additional options - e.g. tuning parameters to InnoDB, dets, ets,
> or whatever back-end is being used.
> Taking it one step further, it should be possible to specify a
> default behaviour for each copy type, and override per-table.

+1 on all of this; mnesia gets a whole lotta more interesting/viable
as a large-scale store when you can swap out the backend.

I do wonder, though, about the implications of transactions if you
start using a non-transactional backend -- or does the existing
transactional system take care of that?


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list