| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Advocacy List" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease |
| Date: | 2007-07-13 10:08:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1184321329.4512.110.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 11:56 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> >> EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL
> >>
> >
> > This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific
> > workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature
> > called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a
> > good job.
> >
> Please note that the website doesn't mention "untuned". We all know that
> an untuned PostgreSQL is usually slower than a tuned installation.
> Autotuning is a fine feature, but the EnterpriseDB website and marketing
> stuff gives the impression that the Enterprise _core_ system is 200 %
> better.
I was responding to the specific post only.
Thanks for clarifying the issue, I'll pass that on.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-07-13 14:12:44 | Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL related pressrelease |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2007-07-13 09:56:59 | Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL related pressrelease |