Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jonah H. Harris
Subject Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date
Msg-id 36e682920706061101i5d3344c2idc518c6190b0af77@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  (Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>)
Responses control of benchmarks (was: Thousands of tables)
Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
List pgsql-performance
On 6/6/07, Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote:
> They're blowing smoke if they think Oracle can do this.

Oracle could handle this fine.

> Oracle fell over dead, even with the best indexing possible,
> tuned by the experts, and using partitions keyed to the
> customerID.

I don't think so, whoever tuned this likely didn't know what they were doing.

> It's telling that Oracle's license contract prohibits you from
> publishing comparisons and benchmarks.  You have to wonder why.

They did this for the same reason as everyone else.  They don't want
non-experts tuning the database incorrectly, writing a benchmark paper
about it, and making the software look bad.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Craig James
Date:
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Next
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?