Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 20:07, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 5/3/11 11:01 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> In other words, calling it an in-memory table does capture
>>> the essence of the intent; it is enough if the caveats which come
>>> later cover the exceptions, IMO.  But let's not rename the feature;
>>> this is about marketing presentation.
>>
>> Right.   What I'm suggesting ... and have already been doing, because I
>> didn't realize it would be a problem, is that we say something like this
>> in the description:
>>
>> "Unlogged tables are similar to in-memory tables or global temporary
>> tables."
>
> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are *always*
> written to disk. AFAIK that is - or do they actually get spooled in
> RAM-only until they get big enough? I'm prettysure they don't.
>
> They *are*, however, pretty similar to global temporary tables. Are
> those well known enough to be used for the pitch without mentioning
> in-memory tables?

I wouldn't. Robert and I talked a number of times about him
implementing global temp tables after unlogged tables. If he does,
then things will just get a whole heap more confusing next year if
we're already (mis)used the term.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company