Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations

From: Michael Paquier
Subject: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20180129045338.GB8173@paquier.xyz
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  ("Jonathan S. Katz")
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Thomas Kellerer, )
 Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Stephen Frost, )
  Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Robert Haas, )
   Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Christophe Pettus, )
   Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  ("Jonathan S. Katz", )
    Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Robert Haas, )
     Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  ("Jonathan S. Katz", )
      Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Michael Paquier, )

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 05:07:43PM -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Robert Haas <> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <> 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.

Their article never uses "configuration", "configure" and has no mention
about what kind of tuning they've done for any systems.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations
From: Lætitia Avrot
Date:
Subject: Local User Group in Nantes, France