| From: | Mark Wong <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MonetDB test says that PostgreSQL often has errors or missing results |
| Date: | 2010-01-20 18:02:37 |
| Message-ID: | 70c01d1d1001201002h254c8ed0ye34c59d47d97c2fe@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>> Actually, the report which MonetDB has published I believe is illegal.
>> If they're not running it through the TPC, they can't claim it's a
>> "TPCH" result.
>>
>
> I just resisted getting into that but now you've set me off again.
> Presumably they're using the public TPC-H data and query generator
> distributed by the TPC, and there's certainly plenty of other unofficial
> reports of results using that floating around. Where I think they really
> crossed the line here is using that kit to produce unaudited results, and
> then publishing results that included comparisons against a competitor,
> which is clearly not what the TPC intends you to do here.
What the TPC provides isn't really a usable kit. It could be
entertaining to see how their kit works.
Regards,
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-20 18:16:05 | Re: Synchronization primitives (Was: Re: An example of bugs for Hot Standby) |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-20 18:00:33 | Synchronization primitives (Was: Re: An example of bugs for Hot Standby) |