| From: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ian Bailey-Leung <ian(at)hardcircle(dot)net>, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Date: | 2011-05-04 20:12:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1304539932.2880.581.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 12:59 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > The best way to show off a new feature is to emphasize the positive
> > aspects. The main reason people will use unlogged tables is to
> improve
> > performance on tables that do not need to be crash safe. I would
> > propose calling the feature something like "Fast Tables", and the
> fine
> > print can mention the trade-offs related to not logging.
> >
> > Just my thoughts,
>
> +1 for Fast Tables.
So, are the remaining ones "slow"? That is not good from marketing (and
technical) perspective.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-05-04 20:13:07 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2011-05-04 20:08:40 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-04 20:12:32 | Re: Predicate locking |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2011-05-04 20:08:40 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |