Hey, you can say what you want about my style, but you
still haven't pointed to even one article from the vast literature
that you claim supports your argument. And I did include a
smiley. Your original email that PostgreSQL is wrong and
that you are right led me to believe that you, like others making
such statements, would not post your references. You remind
me of Ted Nelson, who wanted the computing center at
the University of Illinois at Chicago to change their systems
just for him. BTW, I'm a scientist -- I haven't made my mind
up about anything. I really am interested in what you say,
if there is any real work backing up your claims such that
it would impact average cases.
Any app designer can conceive of many ways to game the
server to their app's advantage -- I'm not interested in that
potboiler.
douglas
On Oct 4, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> Unfortunately, no matter what I say or do, I'm not going to please
> or convince anyone who has already have made their minds up
> to the extent that they post comments like Mr Trainor's below.
> His response style pretty much proves my earlier point that this
> is presently a religious issue within the pg community.
>
> The absolute best proof would be to build a version of pg that does
> what Oracle and DB2 have done and implement it's own DB
> specific memory manager and then compare the performance
> between the two versions on the same HW, OS, and schema.
>
> The second best proof would be to set up either DB2 or Oracle so
> that they _don't_ use their memory managers and compare their
> performance to a set up that _does_ use said memory managers
> on the same HW, OS, and schema.
>
> I don't currently have the resources for either experiment.
>
> Some might even argue that IBM (where Codd and Date worked)
> and Oracle just _might_ have had justification for the huge effort
> they put into developing such infrastructure.
>
> Then there's the large library of research on caching strategies
> in just about every HW and SW domain, including DB theory,
> that points put that the more context dependent, ie application
> or domain specific awareness, caching strategies are the better
> they are.
>
> Maybe after we do all we can about physical IO and sorting
> performance I'll take on the religious fanatics on this one.
>
> One problem set at a time.
> Ron
