Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle

From: "Mark Wong" <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle
Date: 2008-12-16 19:56:07
Message-ID: 70c01d1d0812161156k2c348ee7y3b42f019b298e1e1@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>>
>> Well, running an official TPC benchmark is an interesting process.
>> First, you have to have a spec-compliant benchmark kit, which we
>> don't.
>
> Well, then the first order of business would be to write a benchmark kit.  I
> have been thinking for a while that we should make our own maintained
> version of the DBT+* suite, or whatever other suite is appropriate.  And
> then start running it.

We're slowing tuning a system for the dbt2 kit in Portland with the
hardware from HP.

> The rest of this discussion, while interesting, cannot really lead to any
> improvements, because none of the results and analyses can be published.
>  Like, you know, "I have these great insights into important problems, but I
> cannot tell you about them."
>
> Is it possible to write a possibly eventually compliant benchmark kit under
> open-source terms?

Yes.  I believe the only restriction is to not use the kit in a way
that competes with the TPC.  Using the kits for our developing efforts
is ok.

Regards,
Mark

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-12-16 20:14:26
Subject: Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle
Previous:From: Mark WongDate: 2008-12-16 19:53:08
Subject: Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group