On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I pointed out in my last email, he makes claims about PG being faster than Oracle and MySQL based on his results. I've already pointed out significant tuning considerations, for both Postgres and Oracle, which his benchmark did not take into account.
This group really surprises me sometimes. For such a smart group of people, I'm not sure why everyone seems to have a problem pointing out design flaws, etc. in -hackers, yet when we want to look good, we'll overlook blatant flaws where benchmarks are concerned.
ISTM you are the one throwing out unsubstantiated assertions without
data to back it up. OP ran benchmark. showed hardware/configs, and
demonstrated result. He was careful to hedge expectations and gave
rationale for his analysis methods.
As I pointed out in my last email, he makes claims about PG being faster than Oracle and MySQL based on his results. I've already pointed out significant tuning considerations, for both Postgres and Oracle, which his benchmark did not take into account.
This group really surprises me sometimes. For such a smart group of people, I'm not sure why everyone seems to have a problem pointing out design flaws, etc. in -hackers, yet when we want to look good, we'll overlook blatant flaws where benchmarks are concerned.
If you think he's wrong, instead of picking on him why don't you run
some tests showing alternative results and publish them...leave off
the oracle results or use a pseudo-name or something.
One of these days I'll get some time and post my results. I'm just pointing out obvious flaws in this benchmark. If Sergio wants to correct them and/or qualify them, that's cool with me. I just don't like people relying on questionable and/or unclear data.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
