Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations

From: Jonathan S. Katz
Subject: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations
Date: ,
Msg-id: F09911E0-667C-4F12-A0E9-AE8C5752FB93@postgresql.org
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Robert Haas)
Responses: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Michael Paquier)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Thomas Kellerer, )
 Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Stephen Frost, )
  Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Robert Haas, )
   Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Christophe Pettus, )
   Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  ("Jonathan S. Katz", )
    Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Robert Haas, )
     Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  ("Jonathan S. Katz", )
      Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations  (Michael Paquier, )

Hi Robert,

> On Jan 26, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Robert Haas <> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Jonathan S. Katz <> wrote:
>>> Yeah, that's really deceptive.
>>
>> Skimming the paper, it also does not mention which versions of the software
>> are being used.  Ideally how the DBs were configured on the hardware
>> would be great to see too, but that may be asking too much.
>
> That's because they didn't use *any* version of PostgreSQL.  They
> tested something that they claim works *like* PostgreSQL but is
> actually not the PostgreSQL code.

To clarify, that comment was based on all the databases they were using,
not just PostgreSQL.

Thanks,

Jonathan




pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: "Jonathan S. Katz"
Date:
Subject: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: A not so good comparison of MVCC implementations