From: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date: | 2011-05-03 18:02:34 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTi=3UTVfJ84574eSap585UOSdsd_ig@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Can Unlogged tables be located on a table space mount on a ram fs
without hosing the instance if the server gets bounced?
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> All,
>
> This has come up a couple times off-list, so I thought we should hammer it out here regarding messaging for 9.1.
>
> I was discussing the Unlogged Tables feature with an industry analyst. He advised me fairly strongly that we should call it, or at least describe it, as "in-memory tables". While I'm not that sanguine about renaming the feature, I'm happy to use marketing terms in descriptive text in a press release if it gets people interested.
>
> Our basic issue with the cool features in 9.1 is the elevator pitch problem. Try to describe SSI to a reporter in 20 seconds or less. Unlogged tables suffers from this. "What's an unlogged table? Why is *not* having something a feature?" "long description here ..." "nevermind, I have enough."
>
> Saying "It's like a in-memory table" is a lot more successful. And it's using the term "in-memory" the same way a lot of other DBMSes market it, i.e. in-memory == non-durable & no disk writes. The important thing from my perspective is that unlogged tables give us the capabilities of a lot of the "in-memory" databases ... with unlogged tables and fsync off, for example, PostgreSQL becomes a viable caching database.
>
> When doing PR, it's more important to use terms people recognize than to use terms which are perfectly accurate. Nobody expects a news article to be perfectly accurate anyway.
>
> However, I posted this because I think that several folks in the community feel that this is going too far into the land of marketese, and I want to hash it out and get consensus before we start pitching 9.1 final.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://pgexperts.com
> San Francisco
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
>
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-05-03 18:06:51 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-03 18:01:31 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-05-03 18:06:51 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-03 18:01:31 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |