Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date: 2007-06-06 18:01:59
Message-ID: 36e682920706061101i5d3344c2idc518c6190b0af77@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 6/6/07, Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> They're blowing smoke if they think Oracle can do this.

Oracle could handle this fine.

> Oracle fell over dead, even with the best indexing possible,
> tuned by the experts, and using partitions keyed to the
> customerID.

I don't think so, whoever tuned this likely didn't know what they were doing.

> It's telling that Oracle's license contract prohibits you from
> publishing comparisons and benchmarks. You have to wonder why.

They did this for the same reason as everyone else. They don't want
non-experts tuning the database incorrectly, writing a benchmark paper
about it, and making the software look bad.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2007-06-06 18:15:48 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Previous Message Craig James 2007-06-06 17:32:13 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?