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

Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Date: 2011-05-04 23:23:05
Message-ID: BANLkTinTjxP5hBe0DsywFEoFLsxO5rcWwA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On 5 May 2011 00:18, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On 5/4/2011 1:26 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> If we're talking about marketing jargon, how about getting *really*
>> out there with "lightening tables".  Built for speed but not
>> persistence.
>>
>> Hey, nobody liked evanescent, so I'm trying a different route...
>
> ACID Free.

Low Fat Tables?

The problem with a nice marketable name is the potential to mislead.
Fast Tables is the simplest so far, but it kinda suggests it's a
special new type of table only distinguished by the fact that it's
faster.

Thom

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2011-05-04 23:23:31
Subject: Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype
Previous:From: Johann 'Myrkraverk' OskarssonDate: 2011-05-04 23:22:25
Subject: Re: DLL export with mingw-w64: currently a no-op

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2011-05-04 23:45:43
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2011-05-04 23:18:55
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

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