Subject: Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of various SQL commands with it for Heap AM

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 11:14:14 +0200

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/

---

From: Andres Freund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:03:19 -0700

Hi,

> reuses our well-established acronym AM.

Strongly agreed. I don't know why I dislike TAM so much though.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

---

From: Michael Paquier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 08:07:11 +0900

> don't think we'd turn "sequence AM" into SAM either, would we?

SAM is not a term I've seen used for sequence AMs in the past, I don't
intend to use it.  TAM is similar strange to me, but perhaps it's just
because I am used to table AMs as a whole.
--
Michael