On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 08:13, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is cool work; I am going to bikeshed on the name for a minute. I
> don't think Result Cache is terrible, but I have two observations:
Thanks
> 1. It might invite confusion with a feature of some other database
> systems where they cache the results of entire queries and try to
> reuse the entire result set.
Yeah. I think "Cache" is good to keep, but I'm pretty much in favour
of swapping "Result" for something else. It's a bit too close to the
"Result" node in name, but too distant for everything else.
> 2. The functionality reminds me a bit of a Materialize node, except
> that instead of overflowing to disk, we throw away cache entries, and
> instead of caching just one result, we potentially cache many.
>
> I can't really think of a way to work Materialize into the node name
> and I'm not sure it would be the right idea anyway. But I wonder if
> maybe a name like "Parameterized Cache" would be better?
Yeah, I think that name is better. The only downside as far as I can
see is the length of it.
I'll hold off a bit before doing any renaming though to see what other
people think. I just feel bikeshedding on the name is something that's
going to take up quite a bit of time and effort with this. I plan to
rename it at most once.
Thanks for the comments
David