From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Major features of 9.0? |
Date: | 2010-02-24 03:25:15 |
Message-ID: | 201002232225.15706.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Monday 22 February 2010 16:10:40 David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 17:02:39 Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Josh Berkus:
> > > >> Isn't hstore key/value pair data, rather than schema-less.
> > > >
> > > > Well, when the "NoSQL" people talk about "schemaless", that's
> > > > what they mean.
> > >
> > > Some of them have got arbitrarily nested documents involving
> > > sequences, booleans, sequences of string/document pairs, strings,
> > > and floats. Positioning PostgreSQL's simple key/value support
> > > against that could be a PR mistake. 8-)
> >
> > A better way to look at it is "improved support for storing
> > semi-structured and un-structured data". Because we have pretty
> > good support for that really, but these changes should make that
> > somewhat better.
>
> There's a technical term we use for "un-structured data:" random bits.
> That other people use this misnomer isn't a reason we should
> perpetuate it.
>
ISTM the point of this list/discussion is to focus on marketing of Postgres.
Given that, I don't think "improved support for storing random bits" is the
direction we should be going in.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2010-02-24 03:44:43 | Anyone going to CodeStock 2010? |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-02-22 21:10:40 | Re: Major features of 9.0? |