Greg Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Amber wrote:
>
>> I read something from
>> http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb/SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/index.html
>> saying that PostgreSQL can't give the correct result of the some
>> TPC-H queries
>
> Jignesh Shah at Sun ran into that same problem. It's mentioned
> briefly in his presentation at
> http://blogs.sun.com/jkshah/entry/postgresql_east_2008_talk_postgresql
> on pages 26 and 27. 5 of the 22 reference TCP-H queries (4, 5, 6, 10,
> 14) returned zero rows immediately for his tests. Looks like the
> MonetDB crew is saying it does that on queries 4,5,6,10,12,14,15 and
> that 20 takes too long to run to generate a result. Maybe 12/15/20
> were fixed by changes in 8.3, or perhaps there were subtle errors
> there that Jignesh didn't catch--it's not like he did a formal
> submission run, was just kicking the tires. I suspect the difference
> on 20 was that his hardware and tuning was much better, so it probably
> did execute fast enough.
>
> While some of the MonetDB bashing in this thread was unwarranted, it
> is quite inappropriate that they published performance results here.
> Would be nice if someone in the community were to grab ahold of the
> TPC-H problems and try to shake them out.
>
Hmm This is the second time MonetDB has published PostgreSQL numbers. I
think I will try to spend few days on TPC-H again on a much smaller
scale (to match what MonetDB used) and start discussions on solving the
problem.. Keep tuned.
Regards,
Jignesh
