Horton

Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

David Fetter <david@fetter.org>

View thread
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>
Cc: Ian Bailey-Leung <ian@hardcircle.net>, Joshua Kramer <josh@globalherald.net>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-04T20:13:07Z
Lists: 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@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.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