From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Time to start the PR machine |
Date: | 2005-09-30 17:52:27 |
Message-ID: | 433D7B5B.4030003@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think converted is the wrong word. Maybe "stored".
Good point...
indexes will be automatically stored as bitmaps in RAM...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>----
>>Bitmap Scan: some indexes will be automatically converted to
>>bitmaps in memory, giving up to 20x faster index performance on
>>complex queries against against very large tables, such as those
>>found in data marts. Bitmap Scan also greatly reduces the need
>>for multi-column indexes.
>>
>>Bitmap Scan: indexes will be automatically converted when appropriate...
>>
>>when needed
>>
>>----
>>
>>----
>>Shared Row Locking: PostgreSQL's "better than row-level
>>locking" has been improved further through the addition of
>>shared row locks for foreign keys. Shared locks will improve
>>insert and update performance on some OLTP applications
>> ^^^^
>>
>>The word "some" sounds like it is a minority of OLTP applications.
>>In general any moderately used OLTP app will benifit from this yes?
>>
>>many, most, or just say performance on OLTP applications.
>>
>>---
>>
>>
>>
>>Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>>>Javier, Josh, Mitch, etc.:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about instead looking at this issue by trying to define a short
>>>>statement about postgres which should be included in every release,
>>>
>>>
>>>You know, all of your feedback would be *much* more useful if you
>>>actually read the release I have up, currently. I'll repeat, because
>>>nobody on *this* thread has once referred to this fact:
>>>
>>>The "ABOUT POSTGRESQL" statement contains a mention of the BSD license
>>>and its business-friendliness.
>>>
>>>Now, all of you, please read the release and make comments on what's
>>>actually there, thanks.
>>>
>>>http://pgfoundry.org/docman/view.php/1000047/85/release.txt
>>>
>>>The question is not whether we need to mention our license. That's
>>>already there. It's whether it needs more emphasis than it's already
>>>getting, like the phrase "released under the flexible BSD license" in
>>>the first paragraph.
>>>
>>>--Josh
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>>TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>>
>>
>>--
>>Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
>>PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
>>Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
>>Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
>>
>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>>
>
>
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-09-30 18:03:26 | Re: Time to start the PR machine |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-09-30 17:31:56 | Re: Time to start the PR machine |