| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | gnuoytr(at)rcn(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Useless sort by |
| Date: | 2010-09-23 17:11:50 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTingfD2-1VGbObO3i1A_xN5b36i1_78sd2h_wtQU@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:51 AM, <gnuoytr(at)rcn(dot)com> wrote:
> Not insulting, just amused bemusement. PG portrays itself as the best OS database, which it may well be. But it does so by stressing the row-by-agonizing-row approach to data. In other words, as just a record paradigm filestore for COBOL/java/C coders. I was expecting more Relational oomph. As Dr. Codd says: "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks". Less code, more data.
So what, exactly, would give pgsql more relationally "oomph"?
Your assertion feels pretty hand wavy right now.
--
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-09-23 19:41:43 | Re: how to enforce index sub-select over filter+seqscan |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-23 15:43:35 | Re: how to enforce index sub-select over filter+seqscan |