{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03245942571785269, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00749063670411985, 'mean_word_length': 4.940740740740741, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Case for Log Structuring in Database Systems

The notion of a log structured file system (LFS) [6, 9] evolved from earlier efforts using similar techniques [8, 2] as a means to improve write performance of file systems. Other benefits include faster metadata operations, e.g. file create and delete. But there is controversy about the the utility of LFS for database systems, especially in light of the critique in [10]. This position paper argues that LFS has wonderful potential as the underpinning of a database system, solving a number of problems that are known to be quite vexing, and providing some additional important benefits. These include atomic writes, system management and scalability, storage efficiency, and recovery system performance. There are three inter-related ideas in LFS.