| From: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ian Bailey-Leung <ian(at)hardcircle(dot)net>, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Date: | 2011-05-04 20:17:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1304540278.2880.583.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 13:13 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > So, are the remaining ones "slow"? That is not good from marketing
> (and
> > technical) perspective.
>
> How about Faster Tables?
Yeah, I thought that, too -- actually I really do like Unlogged Tables
(someone in TR told me that it *sounds* like a great innovation ;) ),
but looks like I'm not inside the majority in here.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-05-04 20:19:06 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2011-05-04 20:13:07 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-05-04 20:19:06 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-04 20:14:25 | Re: Prefered Types |