Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Major features of 9.0?

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Major features of 9.0?
Date: 2010-02-24 03:25:15
Message-ID: 201002232225.15706.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Monday 22 February 2010 16:10:40 David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 17:02:39 Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Josh Berkus:
> > > >> Isn't hstore key/value pair data, rather than schema-less.
> > > >
> > > > Well, when the "NoSQL" people talk about "schemaless", that's
> > > > what they mean.
> > >
> > > Some of them have got arbitrarily nested documents involving
> > > sequences, booleans, sequences of string/document pairs, strings,
> > > and floats.  Positioning PostgreSQL's simple key/value support
> > > against that could be a PR mistake. 8-)
> >
> > A better way to look at it is "improved support for storing
> > semi-structured and un-structured data".  Because we have pretty
> > good support for that really, but these changes should make that
> > somewhat better.
>
> There's a technical term we use for "un-structured data:" random bits.
> That other people use this misnomer isn't a reason we should
> perpetuate it.
>

ISTM the point of this list/discussion is to focus on marketing of Postgres. 
Given that, I don't think "improved support for storing random bits" is the 
direction we should be going in.

-- 
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Robert TreatDate: 2010-02-24 03:44:43
Subject: Anyone going to CodeStock 2010?
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2010-02-22 21:10:40
Subject: Re: Major features of 9.0?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group