On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:55 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 19:20 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Jeff Davis wrote:
> > > Clearly, there is a huge difference in the overall application. The
> > > PostgreSQL entry was done quickly, and the author probably didn't
> > > understand the terms of the contest entirely, let alone have the time
> > > to optimize his entry.
> >
> > I don't think you should make these kinds of insulting judgements
> > without research.
> >
>
> The author himself said he didn't have time. I didn't mean to be
> insulting, and I apologize if I was. 120 versus 3000 seems like the
> MySQL entry guys were operating with an entirely separate set of
> assumptions, and spent much more time optimizing it and determining the
> exact contest requirements.
>
After re-reading my original post, it came out differently than I
intended, and I apologize to the author. My point was simply that the
author did not spend as much time as the MySQL entry participants (I'm
not criticizing the author, but just paraphrasing his words). I think
that the time the MySQL entry participants spent preparing, which
included the time they spent understanding the bounds of the contest,
had much more to do with the end result than any technical details.
We can't have a perfect entry for every contest, so I don't think it's a
big deal. If someone sees a contest in the future, they should post it
on -advocacy when they see it, so that PostgreSQL people have more time
to prepare a potential entry. Then, we can have a few extra "wins" among
the crowd that reads those articles.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
