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

Re: 7.4 Press Release -- Draft #3

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>,Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>,<pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.4 Press Release -- Draft #3
Date: 2003-07-22 17:36:43
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0307221131560.19541-100000@css120.ihs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:

> People,
> 
> Remember, everyone, this is a Press Release for the **trade press**.  It does 
> NOT pay to get too technical.   For example, I'd re-write the below as:
> 
> > Improvements to the query planner, including a redesign of subquery
> > handling with the IN() clause, resulting in considerable speed
> > improvements.
> 
> Improvements in subquery handling by the planner resulting in up to 400% speed 
> increases in some complex queries.
> 
> (the 400% is based on a couple of examples on -PERFORMANCE)
> 
> Even a trade reporter ... like the Linux Weekly News ... isn't likely to 
> understand " IN() subquery".   
> 
> > > Optional explicit join rewriting by the query planner,
> > > allowing an easy transition for MS SQL Server users.
> >
> > I don't like that, because istm win32 would really make transition
> > easier, and I'd like to avoid bringing up thoughts of that...
> 
> Sure it would, but the from_collapse_order was a big deal to several former 
> MSSQL DBAs on our lists.
> 
> > Are there other databases that use this behavior?
> 
> Yes, Sybase.  Not sure about others.  I see where you're going:
> 
> Optional explicit join rewriting by the query planner,
> allowing an easy transition for MS SQL Server and Sybase
> users.
> 
> > > Mentioning support for AMD's Opteron would also be a good bit to have
> > > since that says, "we're a safe database to base your business around
> > > because we move with the times and support cutting edge hardware, even
> > > though the project has been around forever."
> >
> > still thinking on this one... it's not new that we support 64bit
> > hardware.
> 
> No, it's not.  I point out, though, that MySQL got a significant amount of 
> press milage out of their support for AIX last year ... even though we've had 
> it for 2 years.  Since we *do* have production-tested support for Opteron in 
> this release, we need to trumpet it loud and "grab the high ground."

If we're going to say something about opteron / 64bit, we should probably 
say something like:

"Version 7.4 now includes support for compiling in 64 bit mode on the AMD 
Opteron, this brings the total number of 64 bit systems Postgresql can run 
on to (number here) including: (architectures go here)."

That's still awkward, but you get my point, we should mention the other 
architectures.  Probably not a bad idea to throw in how long postgesql has 
been 64 bit clean as well.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Sean ChittendenDate: 2003-07-22 17:53:48
Subject: Re: 7.4 Press Release -- Draft #3
Previous:From: Gavin M. RoyDate: 2003-07-22 17:33:57
Subject: New Poll @ Codewalkers

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