| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| 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: | 2018-01-28 22:07:43 |
| Message-ID: | F09911E0-667C-4F12-A0E9-AE8C5752FB93@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Hi Robert,
> On Jan 26, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
To clarify, that comment was based on all the databases they were using,
not just PostgreSQL.
Thanks,
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-01-29 04:53:38 | Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-27 00:03:09 | Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations |