Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:59 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:50:51PM -0400, Ian Bailey-Leung wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net> wrote:
>> >> 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
>> > Logless tables?
>> > Log-Free tables?
>>
>> The best way to show off a new feature is to emphasize the positive
>> aspects. The main reason people will use unlogged tables is to improve
>> performance on tables that do not need to be crash safe. I would
>> propose calling the feature something like "Fast Tables", and the fine
>> print can mention the trade-offs related to not logging.
>>
>> Just my thoughts,
>
> +1 for Fast Tables.
>

so, if i want my database to be fast i have to use those? that name is
pretty misleading.

--
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL