In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in ("Shridhar Daithankar")
transmitted:
> On 10 Feb 2003 at 13:41, Karel Zak wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:50:13AM -0300, Marcelo Pereira wrote:
>> > What about speed?? Is Oracle faster than PostgreSQL?? Why?? I
>> > believe that some day the PostgreSQL development team will
>> > improve the engine and it will be as fast as Oracle.
>> Speed? Use MySQL :-) I think real relation database use is not
>> about speed only -- it means speed is not always most important
>> argument. I sure people use Oracle for the others features.
> Not too good of an argument. It gives an impression that postgresql
> community want to hide behind features and claim that speed is not
> necessary. Sounds very familiar with mysql propaganda that
> "transactions are not necessary because we don't have it"
> Admit it. Postgresql is not as fast as oracle neither as feature
> rich as oracle. but at the same time, it is not as ridiculous as
> oracle at times.
No, the answer is "We don't know which is faster," and it is quite
certain that we /can't/ know with any degree of certainty.
The licensing arrangements for Oracle (and many similar products) deny
the ability to do performance comparisons.
And the benchmarks that /are/ done tend to be useless as they
represent "shilling" for one product or another. The (Samuel
Clemens?) maxim that "figure lie, and liars figure" is seldom more
true than when looking at database benchmarks.
The fact that MySQL shills push benchmarks is far more evidence of
them trying to "put one over on people" than it is of there being any
performance merit to the product.
--
output = reverse("gro.mca@" "enworbbc")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spiritual.html
"Absolutely nothing should be concluded from these figures except that
no conclusion can be drawn from them."
-- By Joseph L. Brothers, Linux/PowerPC Project
