David Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Angel Alvarez <clist(at)uah(dot)es> wrote:
>> we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse
>> there is not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
>> im not native english speaker but i think it still applies.
>> Well this a superlative list so all of you deserve a better "optimal" use.
> As a native english speaker:
> You are technically correct. However, "more optimal" has a
> well-understood meaning as "closer to optimal", and as such is
> appropriate and generally acceptable despite being technically
I disagree -- it's a glaring error. "More optimized" or "better optimized" are perfectly good, and correct, phrases. Why not use them? Every time I read "more optimal," I am embarrassed for the person who is showing his/her ignorance of the basics of English grammar. If I wrote, "It's more best," would you find that acceptable?
> This is a postgres mailing list, not an english grammar mailing list...
Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one rebuttal.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: David Wilson||Date: 2009-05-15 01:21:44|
|Subject: Re: superlative missuse|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri||Date: 2009-05-14 18:34:48|
|Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..|