Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:50:51PM -0400, Ian Bailey-Leung wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net> wrote:
> >> Part of the problem is the name we're using for the feature.  "Unlogged
> >> tables" sounds like we've taken something away and are calling that a
> >> feature.  "Now with no brakes!"  As feature names go, it's as unsexy as
> > Logless tables?
> > Log-Free tables?
>
> 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.

It gets directly to the point, so despite its breaking our usual
naming system where things are unpronounceable or obscure--better
still, both, I think we should go with it.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate