Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

In response to "Derek Rodner" <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com>:

> Folks,
>
> I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of
> EnterpriseDB.
>
> First, let me address the benchmarking issue.  We do restrict anyone
> besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB
> Advanced Server.  It is a standard practice that almost every other
> commercial vendor follows.  After all, we don't want other companies
> hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster.  It is one
> of the benefits of being a proprietary product.

Unfortunately, you are also an open-source-friendly company.  I want to
start out by saying how much I appreciate that fact.

But the truth is that bigshot open-source companies are held to a higher
standard than other companies.  Look at the slack Google took with the
whole China thing.  Anyone else would have gone unnoticed.

And restricting people from publishing benchmarks is wrong.  I do understand
your position -- competitors hobbling your product is very evil.  But, in
spite of sounding childish, "two wrongs don't make a right".

So, from my viewpoint, I don't blame you for doing that, but I expected
more from you guys.  Hope that doesn't come across as harsh.  If my
ideal company is a 10, then the fact that you guys have this restriction
makes you only a 9 in my view.

> Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim.  I stand behind
> this statement 100%.  After all, they are my words.  And, remember, as
> Bruce said, it is marketing.

I could repeat pretty much everything I already said and it would cover
this topic as well.  It's not bad enough to knock you down to an 8, though.

> We have been able to show significant performance increases for many
> companies just by moving them from PostgreSQL to EnterpriseDB Advanced
> Server.  Why?  It is due to a couple of reasons.
>
> First, we use Dynatune.  This pre-configures the database to perform
> optimally.  Many existing PostgreSQL implementations are either
> completely untuned and based on the basic PostgreSQL download, or they
> are tuned by someone not familiar with all of the inner workings of
> PostgreSQL.  Dynatune does the tuning for them and provides a very real
> benefit to our customers.
>
> Second, we are spending many many man years trying to improve the
> performance of PostgreSQL and we give those improvements back to the
> community.  That fact, I am hoping, none of you will disagree with.  As
> it happens, however, the standard release cycles for PostgreSQL and
> EnterpriseDB Advanced Server do not always coincide and, therefore, some
> of these performance features are in our product BEFORE they make it
> into standard PostgreSQL.  So, in some very real cases, we ARE faster
> than PostgreSQL.
>
> If I am not mistaken, "HOT" is a prime example of a feature that almost
> didn't make it into the 8.3 code-base.

And I do appreciate this and everything else EDB has and continues to do.

Personally, I'm not looking at this as some terrible thing that you guys
are doing that invalidates all the good you do or anything like that.  I
do see it as a place where you could improve your business by being more
ethical and better than everyone else.  Hopefully, EDB will be in a position
to make such a bold move.  Me, personally, I'm sick and tired of "business
as usual".

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com