Greg Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Would have been nice if they had pointed to the benchmark they had in
>> mind. The only well known published benchmark I see (on spec.org)
>> that compares postgres to many of these other databases made us look
>> OK to me.
> Found the talk I was alluding to:
> Note the TCP-H summary on P26. Out of the 21 queries in that standard
> benchmark load, PostgreSQL basically doesn't handle 9 of them. Makes it
> hard for businesses to trust you can deploy it as a generic database
> application for data-warehouse purposes knowing there are some sizable
> holes there. And it's difficult to push back and dispute claims of
> benchmark issues with the database vs. the commercial products knowing
> it's not hard to discover said holes.
well for a long time our main problem with TPC-H was that we actually
delivered the wrong(!) answer (due to the half done SQL spec interval
implementation) to a number of queries there.
This issue was also mentioned in a number of other
While 8.4 should now run those queries correctly we are still far away
from being a serious competitor on a dataware house workload like this
so I agree that we still have ways to got...
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2009-10-19 08:06:26|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] UKPUG and using the PUGs site|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2009-10-18 21:17:39|
|Subject: Re: strange postgresql x mysql comparison in