Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

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?

> Part of the problem is the name we're using for the feature.  "Unlogged
> tables" sounds like we've taken something away and are calling that a
> feature.  "Now with no brakes!"  As feature names go, it's as unsexy as
> you can get.

"nosql tables"? ;)

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/