Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease

Folks,

I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of
EnterpriseDB.

First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone
besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB
Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other
commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies
hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one
of the benefits of being a proprietary product.

Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim. I stand behind
this statement 100%. After all, they are my words. And, remember, as
Bruce said, it is marketing.

We have been able to show significant performance increases for many
companies just by moving them from PostgreSQL to EnterpriseDB Advanced
Server. Why? It is due to a couple of reasons.

First, we use Dynatune. This pre-configures the database to perform
optimally. Many existing PostgreSQL implementations are either
completely untuned and based on the basic PostgreSQL download, or they
are tuned by someone not familiar with all of the inner workings of
PostgreSQL. Dynatune does the tuning for them and provides a very real
benefit to our customers.

Second, we are spending many many man years trying to improve the
performance of PostgreSQL and we give those improvements back to the
community. That fact, I am hoping, none of you will disagree with. As
it happens, however, the standard release cycles for PostgreSQL and
EnterpriseDB Advanced Server do not always coincide and, therefore, some
of these performance features are in our product BEFORE they make it
into standard PostgreSQL. So, in some very real cases, we ARE faster
than PostgreSQL.

If I am not mistaken, "HOT" is a prime example of a feature that almost
didn't make it into the 8.3 code-base.

That is my point of view. Let's discuss.

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Simon Riggs
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:41 AM
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: David Fetter; Joshua D. Drake; PostgreSQL Advocacy List
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL
relatedpressrelease

On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > is misleading and dishonest, as is
> > > preventing even the community from doing benchmarks. Please stop.
> >
> > My understanding is that the product requires a licence key to
operate
> > and that this is for revenue protection, not to explicitly prevent
> > benchmarks. My understanding is that Sales is happy to let any
serious
> > buyer test the performance of the product.
>
> The point I think people are making is that while you can do
benchmarks,
> you can't publish your results (which is similar to other commercial
> database license restrictions).

I was not previously aware of such a restriction.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster