| From: | Joe Kislo <postgre(at)athenium(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Burton <jburton(at)scw(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unanswered questions about Postgre |
| Date: | 2000-11-30 22:18:36 |
| Message-ID: | 3A26D23C.B32F1C80@athenium.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joel Burton wrote:
>
> On 30 Nov 2000, at 11:58, Joe Kislo wrote:
> > If you don't believe me, here's two fully SQL-92
> > compliant databases, Oracle and interbase, which do not exhibit this
> > behavior:
>
> Ummm... havings lots of experience w/it, I can say many things
> about Oracle, but "fully SQL-92 compliant" sure isn't one of them. :-)
Nice! I was just reading some article benchmarking Postgre against
interbase.. They said interbase was fully SQL-92 compliant, so I just,
well gosh, assumed it's expensive brotheren were compliant too :)
Does anybody know of an article benchmarking interbase against postgre
7? The article I was reading was comparing it to postgre 6.5. I assume
(hope) there have been some serious speed improvements since then?
-Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Burton | 2000-11-30 22:30:43 | Re: Unanswered questions about Postgre |
| Previous Message | Peter Korsgaard | 2000-11-30 22:15:31 | Re: Database cluster? |