At 01:47 PM 12/11/2006, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 01:20:50PM -0500, Ron wrote:
(The validity of the claim has nothing to do with the skills or
experience of the claimant or anyone else in the discussion. Only
on the evidence.)
Please go back and reread the original post. I don't think the
response was unwarranted.
So he's evidently young and perhaps a trifle over-enthusiast. We
were once too. ;-)
We are not going to get valuable contributions nor help people become
more valuable to the community by "flaming them into submission".
...and who knows, =properly= done experiment may provide both
surprises and unexpected insights/benefits.
I agree completely with telling him he needs to get better evidence
and even with helping him understand how he should go about getting it.
It should be noted that his opposition has not yet done these
experiments either. (Else they could just simply point to the
results that refute Daniel's hypothesis.)
The reality is that a new CPU architecture and multiple new memory
technologies are part of this discussion. I certainly do not expect
them to change the fundamental thinking regarding how to get best
performance for a DBMS. OTOH, there are multiple valid reasons to
give such new stuff a thorough and rigorous experimental shake-down.
ATM, =both= sides of this debate are lacking evidence for their POV.
Let's support getting definitive evidence. No matter who brings it
to the table ;-)
Ron Peacetree
