Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.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: 2011-05-04T20:08:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:59 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:50:51PM -0400, Ian Bailey-Leung wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Joshua Kramer <josh@globalherald.net> wrote: >> >> Part of the problem is the name we're using for the feature. "Unlogged >> >> tables" sounds like we've taken something away and are calling that a >> >> feature. "Now with no brakes!" As feature names go, it's as unsexy as >> > Logless tables? >> > Log-Free tables? >> >> 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, if i want my database to be fast i have to use those? that name is pretty misleading. -- Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL