Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations

From: Christophe Pettus <christophe(dot)pettus(at)pgexperts(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
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: 2018-01-26 18:27:00
Message-ID: D73180BE-27F2-4D56-8251-D3B2E36FD5D8@pgexperts.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy


> On Jan 26, 2018, at 10:08, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> The point of the article seems to be to say that NuoDB made some good
> design decisions, rather than to objective compare existing systems.

It does remind me a bit of the Uber paper, in that they started with a technical decision they had already made, and worked backwards from there.

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2018-01-26 19:07:21 Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-01-26 18:08:35 Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations