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

Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com>
Cc: "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: 2008-12-15 02:51:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:38 PM, justin <justin(at)emproshunts(dot)com> wrote:
> Here is the current  TPC-E [H, C] top 10
> where is oracle???

Where you should be looking is at the price/performance benchmarks,
because that's where Postgres plays.  Last time I checked Postgres on
a TPC-C, albeit being 100% free, was anywhere from $4.00 to $6.00 per
transaction depending on the hardware.  Compare that to Oracle's $0.68
or SQL Server's $0.84.  Yeah, I expect the normal it's just an
industry benchmark, it's not fair, it's not representative of real
workloads or real performance response.

Or, just for the fun of it, run Postgres on the 100GB TPC-H and let me
know what you get for price/performance... then compare that to SQL
Server's result from 2006.

I do want to caution everyone though.  The OSDL-DBT kits are *not*
spec-compliant and have several flaws which make the results fairly
untrustworthy for comparison purposes.  The best TPC-C kit for
Postgres I've seen is EnterpriseDB's version of the DBT-2.  While it's
still not spec-compliant, it fixes several major bugs and includes a
more optimized schema.  If you want a copy, you could petition them to
release their modifications to it.

Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2008-12-15 02:58:50
Subject: Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle
Previous:From: justinDate: 2008-12-15 01:38:03
Subject: Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle

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