| From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mitch Pirtle <mitch(dot)pirtle(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | performance pgsql <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Benchmark |
| Date: | 2005-02-11 13:20:05 |
| Message-ID: | A509BF5A-7C2F-11D9-84A4-000D9366F0C4@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Feb 11, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
>
> I did do the research, but couldn't find one instance where someone
> was actually taken to task over it. So far it appears to be bluster.
> Horrifying to some, but still bluster.
>
They may not have done that yet, but they _COULD_. And if they decide
to they have more money and power than you likely have and would drive
you into financial ruin for the rest of your life (Even if you are
correct). It is a big risk. I think that clause is in there so MS,
etc. can't say "Use FooSQL, its 428% faster than that Oracle POS Just
look!"
After using oracle in the last few months.. I can see why they'd want
to prevent those numbers.. Oracle really isn't that good. I had been
under the impression that it was holy smokes amazingly fast. It just
isn't. At least, in my experience it isn't. but that is another
story.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-02-11 15:04:08 | Re: Benchmark |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-02-11 13:16:29 | Re: Benchmark |