Tomi N/A wrote: > I just ran into an article about Oracle setting a world record in some > kind of test: > http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2007_feb/TPC-H_300GB_Benchmark_wHP.html?rssid=rss_ocom_pr > > > ...which made me think: postgresql aims at the same (or very similar) > clients and use cases as Oracle, DB2 and MSSQL. I pose the question > from an advocacy standpoint: why doesn't postgresql hold a world > record of some sort (except performance/price)? Cost. Joshua D. Drake > Is it because the tests (time, expertise, hardware) are too expensive? > Are the other RDBMSes simply faster? Something else? > I'd like to know, because it'd be a hell of an argument to use when > advocating the use of pgsql on a project: "well, we *could* go with > MSSQL, but it's going to tie us up...when using multiple CPUs > (licences), when deploying a failover solution (licences), when you > want to work with spatial information or something else: but pgsql, on > the other hand...it doesn't have that kind of licencing volatility, > gives you everything it's got and achieves world record performance > doing so..." > > That's the kind of leverage I'd like to have when talking about using > pgsql with my colleagues. > Anyone care to comment? > > Cheers, > Tomislav > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
