From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date: | 2011-05-03 18:56:46 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTinvcgWVV7uc2BnhDg-uyYkkwRqahA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Bailey-Leung | 2011-05-04 01:50:51 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2011-05-03 18:55:28 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-05-03 18:59:22 | Re: A small step towards more organized beta testing |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-05-03 18:55:47 | Re: Prefered Types |