Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html

From: Jim Nasby
Subject: Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html
Date: ,
Msg-id: 623732BC-4A52-4A41-A447-8DAEAFECC61C@nasby.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  ("Harald Armin Massa")
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  (Josh Berkus, )
 Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  (Chris Mair, )
 Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  (Yourfriend, )
 Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  ("Harald Armin Massa", )
  Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  (Jim Nasby, )
 Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  (Oleg Bartunov, )
  Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
   Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  (Oleg Bartunov, )
    Re: Press Release: new draft, PressKit.html  (Josh Berkus, )

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                                    
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)




pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Robert Bernier
Date:
Subject: Re: On future conferences
From: David Fetter
Date:
Subject: Re: one for our brag page