Re: performace review

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performace review
Date: 2006-10-22 16:28:36
Message-ID: 5845.1161534516@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> That implies malice. The people at OpenCRX apparently really
>> believe what they wrote.

> I believe they probably do believe it and it was probably driven by a
> complete lack of understanding of PostgreSQL.

> It doesn't have to be malicious for it to be FUD though.

The psychological reason seems clear enough: if they can dismiss
postgres as not being worthy of their time, it saves them a lot of
work in supporting another database. By this point I'd imagine that
their code is sufficiently mysql-centric that trying to have real
support for other databases would be a huge undertaking; ergo, there
will be great resistance to the idea that they should take postgres
seriously. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, too, because
once the code is sufficiently tuned for mysql you can indeed show that
any other database sucks running it ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-10-22 17:39:44 Re: storage size of "bitstring"?
Previous Message Alex Mayrhofer 2006-10-22 16:24:43 storage size of "bitstring"?