Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>

To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>

Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>

Date: 2011-05-03T18:56:46Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Unlogged tables are similar to in-memory tables or global temporary
>> tables."
>
> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are *always*
> written to disk. AFAIK that is - or do they actually get spooled in
> RAM-only until they get big enough? I'm prettysure they don't.
>
> They *are*, however, pretty similar to global temporary tables. Are
> those well known enough to be used for the pitch without mentioning
> in-memory tables?

Apparently not.

>> 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
>> you can get.
>
> "nosql tables"? ;)

Not that either.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services