"scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com (Steve Crawford)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:
>>> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent
>>> benchmarks, and I think the same is true for SQL Server. So you
>>> won't find anything unbiased.
>> I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission
>> of weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean
>> "Microsoft SQL Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server,"
>> despite the fact that PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL
>> Servers as well).
>> Do you happen to have links to their license agreements? I'd
>> like to see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry
>> a song similar to "bloody murder" for many of my friends and
>> colleagues once verified.
>> Thanks, by the way. This will pretty much be the needed "nail
>> in the coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two
>> organizations are that restrictive in their license agreements
> Restrictive IN their license agreements? Hell, M$ and their buddies in
> the BSA don't even want you to SEE the license till after you have
> purchased the software! When Ed Foster, posing as a customer, tried
> to get a pre-purchase copy of a license agreement he failed.
> Microsoft's policy is that to see the license you must first purchase
> the product: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/1/11/1939/04481
> See how your client feels about that.
Excellent information! Although it's not a benchmark, it's exactly
what I was hoping for! =D
My customer's going to try to get a copy before-hand. He says that if
they don't let him see it then they'll be "out of the running" for sure.
In response to
pgsql-benchmarks by date
|Next:||From: AL ELK||Date: 2005-03-11 11:54:56|
|Subject: more execution time|
|Previous:||From: Randolf Richardson||Date: 2005-01-20 16:43:05|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft|