From: | Emile D Snyder <emile(at)cosource(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ian Turner <vectro(at)pipeline(dot)com> |
Cc: | Eric Webber <streethockey(at)ureach(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: POSTGRESQL vs. ORACLE 8i &Sybase & Interbase etc |
Date: | 2000-09-01 01:14:54 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.10008312012120.2685-100000@everclear.cosource.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I know there's been a certain amount of buzz over the
usefulness/methodology of the tests, but Great Bridge just published a set
of tests using "Major Proprietary #1", ...#2, etc. kind of terminology.
http://www.greatbridge.com/news/p_081420001.html
-emile
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Ian Turner wrote:
> > I am looking for a good head to head comparison of the latest
> > rdbms's and how they match up performance scalibilty out of the
> > box with POSTGRESQL.
>
> Alas, most commercial rdbms's (i.e., oracle, informix, MS SQL, etc.) do
> not allow you to publish benchmark results for their product. So there is
> no way to know.
>
> Ian Turner
> ------------ Output from gpg ------------
> gpg: Signature made Thu Aug 31 19:47:01 2000 CDT using DSA key ID D644D71A
> gpg: requesting key D644D71A from www.keyserver.net ...
> gpg: [fd 8]: read error: Connection reset by peer
> gpg: Total number processed: 0
> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2000-09-01 01:59:32 | Re: referential integrity |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-09-01 01:10:30 | RE: Large selects handled inefficiently? |