Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html

[Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>]

On Sep 25, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> I like the structure of the features and especially how you  
> formulated the part with SQL 2003!
> I am no native speaker of the English language. For me this  
> sentence is very very hard to digest:
>
> """Performance improvements: version 8.2 improves performance  
> around 20%
> overall in high-end OLTP systems and even larger gains in data  
> warehousing
> efficiency""
>
> I had to read it around 3 times trying to get it; I was desperately  
> missing a verb for the "larger gains".
> My recommendation is to split it into 2 sentences and add another  
> verb; at least an auxiliary one; that will make it also easier  
> splitable for journalists:

"...OLTP systems with even larger..."

> """Performance improvements: version 8.2 improves performance  
> around 20%
> overall in high-end OLTP systems. There are even larger gains in  
> data warehousing
> efficiency."""

Or that...

> You explain OLTP further down:
>
> "Online Index Builds: lets OLTP (online transactional processing)
> applications update tables while they are being indexed."
>
> I recommend to explain OLTP at its first occurence (counting  
> "first" on reading top down), rather than on its second.

+1

> My latin-german-english comma-setting sense recommends another ","  
> before include:
>
> """Advanced database features, being offered in PostgreSQL 8.2  
> before any other
> major database system, include:"""
>
> because that "include" belongs to the "Advanced db features", and  
> "being....system" is an insertion.

Actually, the whole thing sounds awkward to me. How about...

This release also adds a number of advanced database features that  
have yet to be included in any other major database system, including:

> and I think the last "," here can be dropped:
>
> """The changes include faster in-memory and on-disk
> sorting, better multi-processor scaling, better planning of  
> partitioned
> data queries, faster bulk loads, and vastly accelerated outer  
> joins."""
>
> because "and" allready counts as separator between the elements of  
> this list.

AFAIK either is acceptable, at least in US-ian english. Personally, I  
prefer keeping the comma.

"which started at the University of California at Berkeley" - Is  
there another acceptable name, maybe University of California,  
Berkeley? The double-use of "at" so close together sounds awkward to me.
--
Jim Nasby                                    jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)