Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> FWIW, I agree with Bruce that using "degree" here is a poor choice. >> It's an unnecessary dependence on technical terminology that many people >> will not be familiar with.
> FWIW, SQL Server calls it "degree of parallelism" as well ( > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188611(v=sql.105).aspx). And > their configuration option is "max degree of parallelism": > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181007(v=sql.105).aspx. Yes, but both they and Oracle appear to consider "degree" to mean the total number of processors used, not the number of secondary jobs in addition to the main one. The only thing worse than employing obscure technical terminology is employing it incorrectly: that way, you get to confuse both the users who know what it means and those who don't. The fact that we couldn't get this right seems to me to be sufficient evidence that we should stay away from the term "degree". regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
