| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Luc Vlaming <luc(at)swarm64(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of various SQL commands with it for Heap AM |
| Date: | 2024-05-15 09:14:14 |
| Message-ID: | 202405150914.q2hc2cl2eqzf@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry to interject, but --
On 2024-May-15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> It looks like with the use of the new multi insert table access method
> (TAM) for COPY (v20-0005), pgbench regressed about 35% [1].
Where does this acronym "TAM" comes from for "table access method"? I
find it thoroughly horrible and wish we didn't use it. What's wrong
with using "table AM"? It's not that much longer, much clearer and
reuses our well-established acronym AM.
We don't use IAM anywhere, for example (it's always "index AM"), and I
don't think we'd turn "sequence AM" into SAM either, would we?
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-05-15 09:39:47 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-05-15 08:38:20 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |