Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:05 PM, justin <email@example.com> wrote:
I would like to see them even if PostgreSql comes dead last.
Well, running an official TPC benchmark is an interesting process.
First, you have to have a spec-compliant benchmark kit, which we
don't. Second, you have to work with a hardware vendor, and none of
the vendors are going to work with you if you can't make their
hardware look good; they don't want to come in last even if it's due
to your software. I know, I talked to three of the major hardware
vendors. Lastly, it costs a fair amount of money and time to perform
an audited benchmark, which I don't think the community wants to pay
Thats a problem with testing. Its not cheap or easy. I do this all
the time with electrical equipment. The company I work for has 20K in
a environmental testing chamber, 55K in power supplies 60K in DMMs
which must be certified to NIST costing another 10K every year. This
is only for the lab and QC.
So yes i know testing is very expensive but it can be done and should
be done independently of the Hardware/Software manufactures. If not
how are we to know that this hardware/Software is really a production
item. Example of independent lab is Consumer Reports, created to test
products without the manufactures influence over the net result as the
manufactures were hoisting bogus testing reports on the public.
The more i learn how the tests are run the more suspicious i become its
totally black bagged. The test method must be easy to understand be
realistic to a real model that anyone can run with X time and X money
on hand. Since you have stated that is near impossible to do, i would
say the testing methods need to be rethought.
Any one can test our product if they went out spend 40K on electrical
lab equipment and has a basic understand of electrical principles.
There is no need to have an understanding of ISO 17025
That don't make sense???? Its all about cost if the other software is
cheaper per transaction means you can spend the same amount of money as
one would on Oracle on lets say MSSQL then blow by Oracle's performance
Does that not prove the point Oracle is over price software compared to the
That depends on whether you need the performance or not.
The only way to verify the results is duplicate the test and given these
servers cost from $100K to $10million its unlikely these test are verified
by a 3rd party running independent hardware. From where i come from for
result to be proven someone else must duplicate the results independently
with only instructions given by the original tester.
Perhaps you should download a full disclosure report of a TPC
benchmark. First of all, they're all audited. Second of all, every
configuration detail is provided for you to be able to run the test
yourself. In fact, if you have a good enough reason to do so (i.e.
looking to buy a good amount of software), both Oracle and Microsoft
will give you copies of their benchmark kits for evaluation purposes
Used to be work under ISO 9000 writing standards and dealing with
Auditors. I know how auditing works and ways to make yourself look
good and in compliance when its completely penciled wiped into shape.
Given no 3rd party does completely independent testing i view it as an
all around joke.
This is the reason we chose to drop ISO certification as it had nothing
to do about doing the job right