Tomi N/A wrote:
> I just ran into an article about Oracle setting a world record in some
> kind of test:
> http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2007_feb/TPC-H_300GB_Benchmark_wHP.html?rssid=rss_ocom_pr
>
>
> ...which made me think: postgresql aims at the same (or very similar)
> clients and use cases as Oracle, DB2 and MSSQL. I pose the question
> from an advocacy standpoint: why doesn't postgresql hold a world
> record of some sort (except performance/price)?
Cost.
Joshua D. Drake
> Is it because the tests (time, expertise, hardware) are too expensive?
> Are the other RDBMSes simply faster? Something else?
> I'd like to know, because it'd be a hell of an argument to use when
> advocating the use of pgsql on a project: "well, we *could* go with
> MSSQL, but it's going to tie us up...when using multiple CPUs
> (licences), when deploying a failover solution (licences), when you
> want to work with spatial information or something else: but pgsql, on
> the other hand...it doesn't have that kind of licencing volatility,
> gives you everything it's got and achieves world record performance
> doing so..."
>
> That's the kind of leverage I'd like to have when talking about using
> pgsql with my colleagues.
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Cheers,
> Tomislav
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
