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.
>
Maybe you should have had a look at the article before speculating.
Contest requirement was very easy: take the DS sample and make it fast
on a given average PC hardware. The MySQL guys were able to take a
working system, others had to write a new db access or even code a new
one. MySQL had a whole (paid? full-time?) team on that, with half the
work already done. The contest was a wrong labeled app optimization
contest. Declaring it as db comparison and using it as marketing stuff
is dubious and highly misleading.
Regards,
Andreas
