| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |
| Date: | 2008-12-15 05:43:11 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920812142143k65fb576dhee7f252bdc7ef7cc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:11 AM, justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com> wrote:
> Thats a problem with testing. Its not cheap or easy.
...
> So yes i know testing is very expensive but it can be done and should be
> done independently of the Hardware/Software manufactures.
Well, this is an open source community, and it doesn't have the money
or the resources to perform such a benchmark. Similarly, regardless
of your opinion regarding TPC database benchmarks, I (and several
others) have run these tests ourselves and know for a fact that both
Oracle and SQL Server's results aren't fake. Likewise, I (and other
PG companies) know where PG stands in comparison.
I'm not quite sure where you're coming from, because you obviously
haven't performed any of these benchmarks yourself and are therefore a
bit uninformed in regard to questioning their validity.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-12-15 08:25:09 | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |
| Previous Message | justin | 2008-12-15 05:11:28 | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |