Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 11:14:14 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, 
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, 
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, 
	Luc Vlaming <luc@swarm64.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, 
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, 
	Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of
 various SQL commands with it for Heap AM
Message-ID: <202405150914.q2hc2cl2eqzf@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACUz5+_YNEa4ZY-XG960_oXefM50MjD71VgSCAVDkF3bzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202405150914.q2hc2cl2eqzf%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

Sorry to interject, but --

On 2024-May-15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:

> It looks like with the use of the new multi insert table access method
> (TAM) for COPY (v20-0005), pgbench regressed about 35% [1].

Where does this acronym "TAM" comes from for "table access method"?  I
find it thoroughly horrible and wish we didn't use it.  What's wrong
with using "table AM"?  It's not that much longer, much clearer and
reuses our well-established acronym AM.

We don't use IAM anywhere, for example (it's always "index AM"), and I
don't think we'd turn "sequence AM" into SAM either, would we?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/