Technically, I agree that limit/offset paradigm is flawed, however, the author just dismisses a valid criticism of keyset pagination with the following:<p>"keyset pagination has some limitations: most notably that you cannot directly navigate to arbitrary pages. However, this is not a problem when using infinite scrolling. Showing page number to click on is a poor navigation interface anyway—IMHO."<p>Sorry, but NO. Infinite scrolling sucks, because it fills the page (and therefore memory) with lots and lots of entries, and disallows me to quickly navigate to exact place in the view I need. If I know that what I seek was approximately on page 12 of last search result, I will go straight there (1 click) and navigate from here. I hate downloading the entire history and scrolling from the beginning.<p>Infinite scrolling is fine the first time, but on repeated visits is just not an option and destroys everybody's valuable time.
It would be nice if the article could also link to the original announcements of stuff like the parallel execution, with clause support etc (it does link it on one or two occasions). It's a bit sparse on details and this would give people the opportunity to dive deeper.
>Parallel Queries
>Commercial databases can do it for decades, but in the open >source database scene it is unique:<p>That's wrong. Open Source Ingres did it for many years too
Of course unlike PG they are not on the Hype train ...