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

Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Date: 2011-05-03 18:56:46
Message-ID: BANLkTinvcgWVV7uc2BnhDg-uyYkkwRqahA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>> "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?

Apparently not.

>> 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"? ;)

Not that either.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2011-05-03 18:59:22
Subject: Re: A small step towards more organized beta testing
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-05-03 18:55:47
Subject: Re: Prefered Types

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Ian Bailey-LeungDate: 2011-05-04 01:50:51
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous:From: Thom BrownDate: 2011-05-03 18:55:28
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

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