| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(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 20:13:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20110504201307.GE1340@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 11:12:12PM +0300, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> 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.
How about Faster Tables?
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2011-05-04 20:17:58 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2011-05-04 20:12:12 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomasz Chmielewski | 2011-05-04 20:13:44 | Re: 'SGT DETAIL: Could not open file "pg_clog/05DC": No such file or directory' - what to do now? |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-04 20:12:32 | Re: Predicate locking |