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

Re: superlative missuse

From: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: clist(at)uah(dot)es, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: superlative missuse
Date: 2009-05-15 01:08:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
David Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Angel Alvarez <clist(at)uah(dot)es> wrote:
>> we suffer a 'more optimal' superlative missuse
>> there is  not so 'more optimal' thing but a simple 'better' thing.
>> im not native english speaker but i think it still applies.
>> Well this a superlative list so all of you deserve a better "optimal" use.
> As a native english speaker:
> You are technically correct. However, "more optimal" has a
> well-understood meaning as "closer to optimal", and as such is
> appropriate and generally acceptable despite being technically
> incorrect.

I disagree -- it's a glaring error.  "More optimized" or "better optimized" are perfectly good, and correct, phrases.  Why not use them?  Every time I read "more optimal," I am embarrassed for the person who is showing his/her ignorance of the basics of English grammar.  If I wrote, "It's more best," would you find that acceptable?

> This is a postgres mailing list, not an english grammar mailing list...

Since you replied on the list, it's only appropriate to get at least one rebuttal.


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: David WilsonDate: 2009-05-15 01:21:44
Subject: Re: superlative missuse
Previous:From: DimitriDate: 2009-05-14 18:34:48
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group