From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Please take part in the PostgreSQL ecosystem survey |
Date: | 2016-04-21 02:18:39 |
Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F5668C5@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Justin Clift
> Out of curiosity, what would you consider "Scalability" (such as
> multi-master replication, and others) to fit under?
>
> It's kind of Functionality, but also kind of Performance. ;)
I think it's better to put scalability as a separate choice. Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability
"A system whose performance improves after adding hardware, proportionally to the capacity added, is said to be a scalable system."
But in that sense, other non-functional characteristics, like availability and manageability, can be the additional choices, too.
Anyway, I just put an example of the dummy (guiding) question. Any interesting alternative dummy question/choices can be ok.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ralf.meyer | 2016-04-22 04:06:24 | Fw: new important message |
Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2016-04-21 01:42:49 | Re: Please take part in the PostgreSQL ecosystem survey |