Re: database contest results

From: Andreas Pflug
Subject: Re: database contest results
Date: ,
Msg-id: 44F4BB56.8000109@pse-consulting.de
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: database contest results  (Jeff Davis)
Responses: Re: database contest results  (Jeff Davis)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

database contest results  (Lukas Kahwe Smith, )
 [ignore this and previous email] Re: database contest results  (Lukas Kahwe Smith, )
 Re: database contest results  (Hans-Juergen Schoenig, )
  Re: database contest results  (Andreas Pflug, )
   Re: database contest results  (Anastasios Hatzis, )
  Re: database contest results  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
  Re: database contest results  (Jeff Davis, )
   Re: database contest results  (Peter Eisentraut, )
    Re: database contest results  (Jeff Davis, )
     Re: database contest results  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
     Re: database contest results  (Jeff Davis, )
     Re: database contest results  (Andreas Pflug, )
      Re: database contest results  (Jeff Davis, )
       Re: database contest results  (Andreas Pflug, )
       Re: database contest results  (mdean, )
        Re: database contest results  (Josh Berkus, )
        Re: database contest results  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
        Re: database contest results  (Brian Hurt, )
 Re: database contest results  (Chris Browne, )
  Re: database contest results  (Andreas Pflug, )

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





pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Chris Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: database contest results
From: Lukas Kahwe Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL rebranding