| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: database contest results |
| Date: | 2006-08-29 17:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1156874131.13414.10.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 19:20 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Clearly, there is a huge difference in the overall application. The
> > PostgreSQL entry was done quickly, and the author probably didn't
> > understand the terms of the contest entirely, let alone have the time
> > to optimize his entry.
>
> I don't think you should make these kinds of insulting judgements
> without research.
>
The author himself said he didn't have time. I didn't mean to be
insulting, and I apologize if I was. 120 versus 3000 seems like the
MySQL entry guys were operating with an entirely separate set of
assumptions, and spent much more time optimizing it and determining the
exact contest requirements.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martin Marques | 2006-08-29 19:00:26 | Re: 7.4 Development |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-29 17:20:33 | Re: database contest results |