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

Re: Draft #5 -- radically re-written

From: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Ned Lilly <ned(at)nedscape(dot)com>,Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Draft #5 -- radically re-written
Date: 2003-07-30 00:26:30
Message-ID: 1059524790.54325.9.camel@jester (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:34, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Ned, Comments on the comments:
> (if I don't remark on something, it's because I agree with it)
> And other people:  I want your feedback on Ned's comments!
> > > competitive with even the highest-end database systems.  And it's
> > > certainly less expensive."
> >
> > "... And you can't beat the cost."
> Hey, ROD!  Which version do you prefer?

heh.. I'd be more apt to say you can't beat the cost.

For my employer, TCO for PostgreSQL has been shown to be lower than
MySQL, Oracle and MSSql primarily due to lower maintenance.

> If annyone in our group has contacts inside AMD to streamline this for us, I 
> would welcome AMD getting behind this announcement.

Perhaps it would be possible to do a minor joint press release after the
fact.  Conduct a benchmark on AMD vs. another 64bit platform.  AMD may
even be willing to sponsor the hardware for something like that.

At the same time we can show that PostgreSQL ain't all that slow simply
by having a large tps published.

In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Ned LillyDate: 2003-07-30 00:41:56
Subject: Re: Draft #5 -- radically re-written
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-07-29 23:52:59
Subject: Re: Draft #5 -- radically re-written

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group