Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTinvcgWVV7uc2BnhDg-uyYkkwRqahA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: