| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations |
| Date: | 2018-01-27 00:03:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobEJVW_1A-gXU89u1nNcwBfvLq24rcA1zLkq3hNbiFkqA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's really deceptive.
>
> Skimming the paper, it also does not mention which versions of the software
> are being used. Ideally how the DBs were configured on the hardware
> would be great to see too, but that may be asking too much.
That's because they didn't use *any* version of PostgreSQL. They
tested something that they claim works *like* PostgreSQL but is
actually not the PostgreSQL code.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-01-28 22:07:43 | Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2018-01-26 19:07:21 | Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations |