From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? |
Date: | 2007-06-06 18:01:59 |
Message-ID: | 36e682920706061101i5d3344c2idc518c6190b0af77@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 6/6/07, Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> They're blowing smoke if they think Oracle can do this.
Oracle could handle this fine.
> Oracle fell over dead, even with the best indexing possible,
> tuned by the experts, and using partitions keyed to the
> customerID.
I don't think so, whoever tuned this likely didn't know what they were doing.
> It's telling that Oracle's license contract prohibits you from
> publishing comparisons and benchmarks. You have to wonder why.
They did this for the same reason as everyone else. They don't want
non-experts tuning the database incorrectly, writing a benchmark paper
about it, and making the software look bad.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2007-06-06 18:15:48 | Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? |
Previous Message | Craig James | 2007-06-06 17:32:13 | Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? |