On Sep 25, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> I like the structure of the features and especially how you
> formulated the part with SQL 2003!
> I am no native speaker of the English language. For me this
> sentence is very very hard to digest:
>
> """Performance improvements: version 8.2 improves performance
> around 20%
> overall in high-end OLTP systems and even larger gains in data
> warehousing
> efficiency""
>
> I had to read it around 3 times trying to get it; I was desperately
> missing a verb for the "larger gains".
> My recommendation is to split it into 2 sentences and add another
> verb; at least an auxiliary one; that will make it also easier
> splitable for journalists:
"...OLTP systems with even larger..."
> """Performance improvements: version 8.2 improves performance
> around 20%
> overall in high-end OLTP systems. There are even larger gains in
> data warehousing
> efficiency."""
Or that...
> You explain OLTP further down:
>
> "Online Index Builds: lets OLTP (online transactional processing)
> applications update tables while they are being indexed."
>
> I recommend to explain OLTP at its first occurence (counting
> "first" on reading top down), rather than on its second.
+1
> My latin-german-english comma-setting sense recommends another ","
> before include:
>
> """Advanced database features, being offered in PostgreSQL 8.2
> before any other
> major database system, include:"""
>
> because that "include" belongs to the "Advanced db features", and
> "being....system" is an insertion.
Actually, the whole thing sounds awkward to me. How about...
This release also adds a number of advanced database features that
have yet to be included in any other major database system, including:
> and I think the last "," here can be dropped:
>
> """The changes include faster in-memory and on-disk
> sorting, better multi-processor scaling, better planning of
> partitioned
> data queries, faster bulk loads, and vastly accelerated outer
> joins."""
>
> because "and" allready counts as separator between the elements of
> this list.
AFAIK either is acceptable, at least in US-ian english. Personally, I
prefer keeping the comma.
"which started at the University of California at Berkeley" - Is
there another acceptable name, maybe University of California,
Berkeley? The double-use of "at" so close together sounds awkward to me.
--
Jim Nasby jimn@enterprisedb.com
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
