On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > The biggest flaw in the benchmark by far has got to be that it was > done with a ramdisk, so it's really only measuring CPU consumption. > Measuring CPU consumption is interesting, but it doesn't have a lot to Agreed. As soon as I saw that I pretty much threw the results out the window. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
