From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, luuk(at)wxs(dot)nl, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
Date: | 1999-10-06 13:54:29 |
Message-ID: | 199910061354.JAA09036@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I can't get excited about changing this from the standpoint of
> > functionality, because AFAICS there is no added functionality.
> > But if we're looking bad on a recognized benchmark maybe we
> > should do something about it.
>
> We are looking bad on a benchmark designed to show MySQL in the best
> possible light, and to show other DBs at their worst. The maintainers
> of that benchmark have no interest in changing that emphasis (e.g. we
> are still reported as not supporting HAVING, even though we have
> demonstrated to them that we do; this is the same pattern we have seen
> earlier).
>
> The last time I looked at it, there were ~30% factual errors in the
> reported results for Postgres; no telling what errors are there for
> other products. imho it is a waste of time to address a bogus
> benchmark, unless someone wants to take it up as a hobby. I'm a bit
> busy right now ;)
On a separate note, should we support HAVING without any aggregates?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-10-06 14:07:41 | psql and comments |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-10-06 13:47:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |