Thread: Problem with recent PostgreSQL related press release
Hello, This article: http://www.vnunet.com/computing/news/2194087/database-ticket and the associated press release: http://www.enterprisedb.com/news_events/press_releases/07_11_07.do Caused quite the storm on IRC. In response to the following prompt: (07:52:16 PM) davidfetter: so, linuxpoet, since you've urged me so many times in private, i'm urging you in semi-public, to start that thread :) I post... I would kindly ask EDB to consider how this looks overall. Everyone is used to marketing speak but this is pretty much a blatant slap in the face about the very product that is the core of what you and all your venture capitalists bet the farm on. My specific gripe would be: Transitioning from its current open source PostgreSQL database to EnterpriseDB Advanced Server will enable Ticketline to increase the speed and improve the reliability of its ticketing system. Which although I can understand the marketing departments excitement about such a great sales (bravo, honestly), I believe it stands to reason that the entire sentence is cow dung. A little truth in advertising would be nice here. How about: Transitioning from its current open source PostgreSQL database to EnterpriseDB Advanced Server will enable Ticketline to increase the supportability of its ticketing system. Which has all the pizazz. I know there are others that were in channel that were pretty taken aback as well. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === 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/
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:05:17PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > This article: > > http://www.vnunet.com/computing/news/2194087/database-ticket > > and the associated press release: > > http://www.enterprisedb.com/news_events/press_releases/07_11_07.do > > Caused quite the storm on IRC. In response to the following prompt: > > (07:52:16 PM) davidfetter: so, linuxpoet, since you've urged me so many > times in private, i'm urging you in semi-public, to start that thread :) > > I post... > > I would kindly ask EDB to consider how this looks overall. Everyone > is used to marketing speak but this is pretty much a blatant slap in > the face about the very product that is the core of what you and all > your venture capitalists bet the farm on. If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't be mentioning it here, but it appears to be marketing policy at EnterpriseDB, and a long-standing one. EnterpriseDB has done a lot for the community, and continues to, but this kind of thing really blights the discourse. While we're at it, telling people that EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL is misleading and dishonest, as is preventing even the community from doing benchmarks. Please stop. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:15 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:05:17PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This article: > > > > http://www.vnunet.com/computing/news/2194087/database-ticket > > > > and the associated press release: > > > > http://www.enterprisedb.com/news_events/press_releases/07_11_07.do > > > > Caused quite the storm on IRC. In response to the following prompt: > > > > (07:52:16 PM) davidfetter: so, linuxpoet, since you've urged me so many > > times in private, i'm urging you in semi-public, to start that thread :) > > > > I post... > > > > I would kindly ask EDB to consider how this looks overall. Everyone > > is used to marketing speak but this is pretty much a blatant slap in > > the face about the very product that is the core of what you and all > > your venture capitalists bet the farm on. > > If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't be mentioning it here, > but it appears to be marketing policy at EnterpriseDB, and a > long-standing one. EnterpriseDB has done a lot for the community, and > continues to, but this kind of thing really blights the discourse. Thank you for your comments; your feedback is welcome. I will ensure the message is received clearly in the EnterpriseDB marketing department. EnterpriseDB does provide PostgreSQL support to many of its customers, as well as supporting the EnterpriseDB Advanced Server. EnterpriseDB Advanced Server is designed specifically to provide an Oracle alternative. There is no marketing policy that I am aware of to talk down the capabilities of PostgreSQL, which would be self-defeating as you observe. EnterpriseDB Adv Server *does* have additional capabilities over PostgreSQL - it isn't the only value-added distribution of PostgreSQL, of which there are at least 5 others claiming this also, each with different specialisms and/or tuning features. > EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a good job. > is misleading and dishonest, as is > preventing even the community from doing benchmarks. Please stop. My understanding is that the product requires a licence key to operate and that this is for revenue protection, not to explicitly prevent benchmarks. My understanding is that Sales is happy to let any serious buyer test the performance of the product. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> A little truth in advertising would be nice here.
Agreed.
<copied>
=== 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/
</copied>
Please can you explain
- why you claim to be "The" PostgreSQL Company, when there are many such
companies around the world. If you don't wish to mislead anyone, then
this clearly should be "A PostgreSQL Company: ....".
- how it is that you say "We are the only dedicated PostgreSQL company,
focusing all of our efforts on the promotion and proliferation of pure
PostgreSQL", when on the very same page you offer for sale a product
which is clearly not part of pure PostgreSQL and you have stated clearly
that you have chosen not to contribute to the PostgreSQL project.
http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
I think people that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Simon Riggs wrote: > >> EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL >> > > This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific > workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature > called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a > good job. > Please note that the website doesn't mention "untuned". We all know that an untuned PostgreSQL is usually slower than a tuned installation. Autotuning is a fine feature, but the EnterpriseDB website and marketing stuff gives the impression that the Enterprise _core_ system is 200 % better. Regards Andreas
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 11:56 +0200, Andreas Pflug wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > >> EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL > >> > > > > This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific > > workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature > > called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a > > good job. > > > Please note that the website doesn't mention "untuned". We all know that > an untuned PostgreSQL is usually slower than a tuned installation. > Autotuning is a fine feature, but the EnterpriseDB website and marketing > stuff gives the impression that the Enterprise _core_ system is 200 % > better. I was responding to the specific post only. Thanks for clarifying the issue, I'll pass that on. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Simon Riggs wrote:
> > is misleading and dishonest, as is
> > preventing even the community from doing benchmarks. Please stop.
>
> My understanding is that the product requires a licence key to operate
> and that this is for revenue protection, not to explicitly prevent
> benchmarks. My understanding is that Sales is happy to let any serious
> buyer test the performance of the product.
The point I think people are making is that while you can do benchmarks,
you can't publish your results (which is similar to other commercial
database license restrictions).
While I cannot find the EnterpriseDB license wording on the EnterpriseDB
web site (bad), I did find a copy via Google that said:
http://var.immixgroup.com/docs/tcs/tcs_enterprisedb.pdf
4. License Restrictions. Client agree that Client will NOT: ...
(h) publish or make available to any third party any analysis of
the results of operation of the Software, including but not limited
to benchmarking results, without the prior written consent of
EnterpriseDB.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> >> EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL
> >>
> >
> > This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific
> > workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature
> > called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a
> > good job.
> >
> Please note that the website doesn't mention "untuned". We all know that
> an untuned PostgreSQL is usually slower than a tuned installation.
> Autotuning is a fine feature, but the EnterpriseDB website and marketing
> stuff gives the impression that the Enterprise _core_ system is 200 %
> better.
I did find that referenced here:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/downloads/datasheets/EnterpriseDB_Advanced_Server.pdf
EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world.s most
advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database
Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of
PostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster.
Notice the marketing-twist "up to". Like, "save up to 99%" in a store window.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > is misleading and dishonest, as is > > > preventing even the community from doing benchmarks. Please stop. > > > > My understanding is that the product requires a licence key to operate > > and that this is for revenue protection, not to explicitly prevent > > benchmarks. My understanding is that Sales is happy to let any serious > > buyer test the performance of the product. > > The point I think people are making is that while you can do benchmarks, > you can't publish your results (which is similar to other commercial > database license restrictions). I was not previously aware of such a restriction. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andreas Pflug wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > >> EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL > > >> > > > > > > This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific > > > workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature > > > called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a > > > good job. > > > > > Please note that the website doesn't mention "untuned". We all know that > > an untuned PostgreSQL is usually slower than a tuned installation. > > Autotuning is a fine feature, but the EnterpriseDB website and marketing > > stuff gives the impression that the Enterprise _core_ system is 200 % > > better. > > I did find that referenced here: > > http://www.enterprisedb.com/downloads/datasheets/EnterpriseDB_Advanced_Server.pdf > > EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world.s most > advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > PostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster. > > Notice the marketing-twist "up to". Like, "save up to 99%" in a store window. Lucky they don't let either of us work in marketing then, eh? -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> A little truth in advertising would be nice here. > Please can you explain > > - why you claim to be "The" PostgreSQL Company, when there are many such > companies around the world. If you don't wish to mislead anyone, then > this clearly should be "A PostgreSQL Company: ....". Yes I have heard this argument. I still consider us "The PostgreSQL Company". > - how it is that you say "We are the only dedicated PostgreSQL company, > focusing all of our efforts on the promotion and proliferation of pure > PostgreSQL", Where did you get that quote, because I don't see it anywhere. We do say, "Command Prompt, Inc. is the oldest and only dedicated PostgreSQL support provider in North America. Since 1997, we have been developing, supporting, deploying and advocating the use of the “World's Most Advanced Open Source Database”." Which has been the source of some confusion in the past because of consultants such as David Fetter and Elein but overall I believe it is accurate. > when on the very same page you offer for sale a product > which is clearly not part of pure PostgreSQL and you have stated clearly > that you have chosen not to contribute to the PostgreSQL project. > http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ That is true. We have PostgreSQL replicator which "is" pure postgresql, with added replication bits. It is also closed source and we don't hide that fact in any way. > > I think people that live in glass houses should not throw stones. > I would agree but of course what you say here is you trying to throw stones at us for bringing up an issue with EDB. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === 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/
Folks, I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of EnterpriseDB. First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one of the benefits of being a proprietary product. Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim. I stand behind this statement 100%. After all, they are my words. And, remember, as Bruce said, it is marketing. We have been able to show significant performance increases for many companies just by moving them from PostgreSQL to EnterpriseDB Advanced Server. Why? It is due to a couple of reasons. First, we use Dynatune. This pre-configures the database to perform optimally. Many existing PostgreSQL implementations are either completely untuned and based on the basic PostgreSQL download, or they are tuned by someone not familiar with all of the inner workings of PostgreSQL. Dynatune does the tuning for them and provides a very real benefit to our customers. Second, we are spending many many man years trying to improve the performance of PostgreSQL and we give those improvements back to the community. That fact, I am hoping, none of you will disagree with. As it happens, however, the standard release cycles for PostgreSQL and EnterpriseDB Advanced Server do not always coincide and, therefore, some of these performance features are in our product BEFORE they make it into standard PostgreSQL. So, in some very real cases, we ARE faster than PostgreSQL. If I am not mistaken, "HOT" is a prime example of a feature that almost didn't make it into the 8.3 code-base. That is my point of view. Let's discuss. Derek M. Rodner Director, Product Strategy EnterpriseDB Corporation 732.331.1333 office 484.252.1943 cell www.enterprisedb.com -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Simon Riggs Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:41 AM To: Bruce Momjian Cc: David Fetter; Joshua D. Drake; PostgreSQL Advocacy List Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:12 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > is misleading and dishonest, as is > > > preventing even the community from doing benchmarks. Please stop. > > > > My understanding is that the product requires a licence key to operate > > and that this is for revenue protection, not to explicitly prevent > > benchmarks. My understanding is that Sales is happy to let any serious > > buyer test the performance of the product. > > The point I think people are making is that while you can do benchmarks, > you can't publish your results (which is similar to other commercial > database license restrictions). I was not previously aware of such a restriction. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Derek Rodner wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of
> EnterpriseDB.
>
> First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone
> besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB
> Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other
> commercial vendor follows.
Standard practice doesn't make the really strong stench go away.
> After all, we don't want other companies
> hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one
> of the benefits of being a proprietary product.
You are hobbling your technology by the very effect of being obscured.
To solve the problem you could simply have a qualified benchmark license
that someone would have to agree to.
You state, that if someone wants to do benchmarks they have to request a
benchmark license. Secondly that person needs to document the benchmarks
that they want to run and *before* publishing the settings they used.
You further state that you reserve the right to help them with the
benchmark to offer the most honest display of your products potential.
This isn't difficult and if your claims to performance fame are true you
should embrace the opportunity.
>
> If I am not mistaken, "HOT" is a prime example of a feature that almost
> didn't make it into the 8.3 code-base.
>
To my knowledge HOT has not yet been denied.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== 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/
In response to "Derek Rodner" <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com>: > Folks, > > I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of > EnterpriseDB. > > First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone > besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB > Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other > commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies > hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one > of the benefits of being a proprietary product. Unfortunately, you are also an open-source-friendly company. I want to start out by saying how much I appreciate that fact. But the truth is that bigshot open-source companies are held to a higher standard than other companies. Look at the slack Google took with the whole China thing. Anyone else would have gone unnoticed. And restricting people from publishing benchmarks is wrong. I do understand your position -- competitors hobbling your product is very evil. But, in spite of sounding childish, "two wrongs don't make a right". So, from my viewpoint, I don't blame you for doing that, but I expected more from you guys. Hope that doesn't come across as harsh. If my ideal company is a 10, then the fact that you guys have this restriction makes you only a 9 in my view. > Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim. I stand behind > this statement 100%. After all, they are my words. And, remember, as > Bruce said, it is marketing. I could repeat pretty much everything I already said and it would cover this topic as well. It's not bad enough to knock you down to an 8, though. > We have been able to show significant performance increases for many > companies just by moving them from PostgreSQL to EnterpriseDB Advanced > Server. Why? It is due to a couple of reasons. > > First, we use Dynatune. This pre-configures the database to perform > optimally. Many existing PostgreSQL implementations are either > completely untuned and based on the basic PostgreSQL download, or they > are tuned by someone not familiar with all of the inner workings of > PostgreSQL. Dynatune does the tuning for them and provides a very real > benefit to our customers. > > Second, we are spending many many man years trying to improve the > performance of PostgreSQL and we give those improvements back to the > community. That fact, I am hoping, none of you will disagree with. As > it happens, however, the standard release cycles for PostgreSQL and > EnterpriseDB Advanced Server do not always coincide and, therefore, some > of these performance features are in our product BEFORE they make it > into standard PostgreSQL. So, in some very real cases, we ARE faster > than PostgreSQL. > > If I am not mistaken, "HOT" is a prime example of a feature that almost > didn't make it into the 8.3 code-base. And I do appreciate this and everything else EDB has and continues to do. Personally, I'm not looking at this as some terrible thing that you guys are doing that invalidates all the good you do or anything like that. I do see it as a place where you could improve your business by being more ethical and better than everyone else. Hopefully, EDB will be in a position to make such a bold move. Me, personally, I'm sick and tired of "business as usual". -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> A little truth in advertising would be nice here. > > > Please can you explain > > > > - why you claim to be "The" PostgreSQL Company, when there are many such > > companies around the world. If you don't wish to mislead anyone, then > > this clearly should be "A PostgreSQL Company: ....". > > Yes I have heard this argument. I still consider us "The PostgreSQL > Company". You must misunderstand the meaning of the word "The" then. It indicates a definite article, such that there is only one. There is more than one "PostgreSQL Company", therefore the statement is innacurate and therefore misleading. > > - how it is that you say "We are the only dedicated PostgreSQL company, > > focusing all of our efforts on the promotion and proliferation of pure > > PostgreSQL", > > Where did you get that quote, because I don't see it anywhere. We do > say, "Command Prompt, Inc. is the oldest and only dedicated PostgreSQL > support provider in North America. Since 1997, we have been developing, > supporting, deploying and advocating the use of the “World's Most > Advanced Open Source Database”." I got it off your web site this morning and it is still there, on the link I gave. If you sell a closed source product as well, then the word "dedicated" cannot apply to you. Even if you claim it does, your stretching of the definition of that word would necessarily include EnterpriseDB (and others), so the word "only" would then be invalid. Your logic is erroneous and you are not "the only dedicated PostgreSQL support provider" in North America. > Which has been the source of some confusion in the past because of > consultants such as David Fetter and Elein but overall I believe it is > accurate. They both seem fairly dedicated to me. > > when on the very same page you offer for sale a product > > which is clearly not part of pure PostgreSQL and you have stated clearly > > that you have chosen not to contribute to the PostgreSQL project. > > http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ > > That is true. We have PostgreSQL replicator which "is" pure postgresql, > with added replication bits. It is also closed source and we don't hide > that fact in any way. You are welcome to do that and I understand the need to make a living. It just happens to contradict the sentence you use elsewhere on the same web page, which I do object to because you are willing to make damaging remarks about other businesses. Your views are clearly not objective in the matter you raise, I believe my views are. > > > > I think people that live in glass houses should not throw stones. > > > > I would agree but of course what you say here is you trying to throw > stones at us for bringing up an issue with EDB. Not at all, I welcome all comments about EDB. I'm not an formal advocate for EDB, just someone that works there and is always interested in making it better. I've passed on your comments and will be following them up. Since I am not the business owner or manager, it is not within my power to change any wording, nor did I write it in the first place. But your own comments refer to your own business as well, yet you will do nothing about them even though you are the business owner. To complain publicly about something another does, when you do a similar thing is hypocrisy. If you care about the things you say, you'll change your own web site. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 08:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> You must misunderstand the meaning of the word "The" then. It indicates
> a definite article, such that there is only one. There is more than one
> "PostgreSQL Company", therefore the statement is innacurate and
> therefore misleading.
If you wish to bring this up in another thread, please feel free to do so.
>
>>> - how it is that you say "We are the only dedicated PostgreSQL company,
>>> focusing all of our efforts on the promotion and proliferation of pure
>>> PostgreSQL",
>> Where did you get that quote, because I don't see it anywhere. We do
>> say, "Command Prompt, Inc. is the oldest and only dedicated PostgreSQL
>> support provider in North America. Since 1997, we have been developing,
>> supporting, deploying and advocating the use of the “World's Most
>> Advanced Open Source Database”."
>
> I got it off your web site this morning and it is still there, on the
> link I gave.
Ahh! found it.. might have been helpful if you actually told me where it
is. I will get it fixed.
The quote that you provide will indeed be fixed and was an oversight.
Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I would ask in the future
that you actually keep the thread on topic however. I invite you to
start another -advocacy thread if you wish on gripes you have about how
CMD represents the community.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== 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/
Bill, These are all valid points. While I can tell you that we aren't likely to remove the benchmark restriction for now, I am apt to change the wording of "up to 200% faster" to something less onerous for the community. Our intention is, and always has been, to be active members in the community, and good citizens. We do that through donations of money, sponsoring of community members, and development of code. There are some issues, however, like our performance claim, that could cause some community members to have concern to be upset with us. In those cases, I want to know!!! You can go to the core team and Bruce will bring them to my attention. Or, even better, come right to me! I like that we are a 9/10 in your book. But, we always strive to be a 10/10. Best, Derek Derek M. Rodner Director, Product Strategy EnterpriseDB Corporation 732.331.1333 office 484.252.1943 cell www.enterprisedb.com -----Original Message----- From: Bill Moran [mailto:wmoran@potentialtech.com] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 11:38 AM To: Derek Rodner Cc: PostgreSQL Advocacy List Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease In response to "Derek Rodner" <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com>: > Folks, > > I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of > EnterpriseDB. > > First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone > besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB > Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other > commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies > hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one > of the benefits of being a proprietary product. Unfortunately, you are also an open-source-friendly company. I want to start out by saying how much I appreciate that fact. But the truth is that bigshot open-source companies are held to a higher standard than other companies. Look at the slack Google took with the whole China thing. Anyone else would have gone unnoticed. And restricting people from publishing benchmarks is wrong. I do understand your position -- competitors hobbling your product is very evil. But, in spite of sounding childish, "two wrongs don't make a right". So, from my viewpoint, I don't blame you for doing that, but I expected more from you guys. Hope that doesn't come across as harsh. If my ideal company is a 10, then the fact that you guys have this restriction makes you only a 9 in my view. > Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim. I stand behind > this statement 100%. After all, they are my words. And, remember, as > Bruce said, it is marketing. I could repeat pretty much everything I already said and it would cover this topic as well. It's not bad enough to knock you down to an 8, though. > We have been able to show significant performance increases for many > companies just by moving them from PostgreSQL to EnterpriseDB Advanced > Server. Why? It is due to a couple of reasons. > > First, we use Dynatune. This pre-configures the database to perform > optimally. Many existing PostgreSQL implementations are either > completely untuned and based on the basic PostgreSQL download, or they > are tuned by someone not familiar with all of the inner workings of > PostgreSQL. Dynatune does the tuning for them and provides a very real > benefit to our customers. > > Second, we are spending many many man years trying to improve the > performance of PostgreSQL and we give those improvements back to the > community. That fact, I am hoping, none of you will disagree with. As > it happens, however, the standard release cycles for PostgreSQL and > EnterpriseDB Advanced Server do not always coincide and, therefore, some > of these performance features are in our product BEFORE they make it > into standard PostgreSQL. So, in some very real cases, we ARE faster > than PostgreSQL. > > If I am not mistaken, "HOT" is a prime example of a feature that almost > didn't make it into the 8.3 code-base. And I do appreciate this and everything else EDB has and continues to do. Personally, I'm not looking at this as some terrible thing that you guys are doing that invalidates all the good you do or anything like that. I do see it as a place where you could improve your business by being more ethical and better than everyone else. Hopefully, EDB will be in a position to make such a bold move. Me, personally, I'm sick and tired of "business as usual". -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
Dear colleagues,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:02:40AM -0400, Derek Rodner wrote:
> commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies
> hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one
> of the benefits of being a proprietary product.
This seems to me to be unobjectionable, because the BSD license in
fact does give people the ability to close their product code, and
place such restrictions on it, and that seemed to be part of the idea
behind the BSD license in the first place. On the other hand,
> Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim. I stand behind
> this statement 100%. After all, they are my words. And, remember, as
> Bruce said, it is marketing.
this _is_ objectionable. To begin with, the glib remark that it's
"marketing" suggests that tossing mud at others is ok, as long as
it's all in the spirit of selling stuff. Second, and somewhat more
importantly, I think, the claim is an apples-to-oranges comparison
that the community is _not allowed_ to rebut, because EnterpriseDB
isn't willing to let us. It's reasonable to expect such behaviour
from other database companies, but it seems a little like eating
your young in this case.
Note that I actually wouldn't have any complaint about the "200%
faster" claim if the claim simply said _why_: "EnterpriseDB's
sophisticated Dynatune tool automatically provides performance gains
of up to 200% over untuned PostgreSQL," (or something similar)
wouldn't cause me to bat an eye.
Quite apart from issues in the community, though, I wonder whether
this angle isn't subtly undermining EnterpriseDB's own arguments. If
PostgreSQL is so great, how come people are able to get 200%
increases in performance out of mostly the same code without much
work? Why isn't the super-excellent PostgreSQL code already doing
that? Oh, and some of these things are new features? Ah, so it's
_not_ just PostgreSQL, tested by the community &c. &c.? I don't
think you can make the argument work in EnterprisDB's favour on both
sides.
I am very far from being someone who objects to closed bits of code,
to people doing what they want, &c. I pushed hard at Afilias to get
Slony (and some other code) released under the BSD license partly
because I think it's good for the community, even if part of the
community goes away and makes changes in secret (before or without
sharing those changes over the long term). But I don't think it's
cricket to be slyly suggesting that the basic code is so much worse
that the magic of EnterpriseDB's contribution solves everything, and
then tell the community they can't test it themselves and publish the
results. It might be permitted by the license, but it isn't part of
any community behaviour I can think well of.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie
On Friday 13 July 2007 11:37, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to "Derek Rodner" <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com>:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of
> > EnterpriseDB.
> >
> > First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone
> > besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB
> > Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other
> > commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies
> > hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one
> > of the benefits of being a proprietary product.
>
> Unfortunately, you are also an open-source-friendly company. I want to
> start out by saying how much I appreciate that fact.
>
> But the truth is that bigshot open-source companies are held to a higher
> standard than other companies. Look at the slack Google took with the
> whole China thing. Anyone else would have gone unnoticed.
>
FWIW that was really over the fact that Google touted "do no evil" as part of
the company mission. It had nothing to do with thier open-source-ness, if
anything they get a pass on a lot of things *because* they are open-source
friendly, not in spite of it).
> And restricting people from publishing benchmarks is wrong. I do
> understand your position -- competitors hobbling your product is very evil.
> But, in spite of sounding childish, "two wrongs don't make a right".
>
When Great Bridge did it's initial performance testing of databases, it found
PostgreSQL performance was already on par with other database systems, and
this is close to 10 years ago. But a slew of poorley concieved and
improperly executed benchmarks from netizens (usually comparing us with
MySQL) has plauged postgresql with a reputation of poor performance for years
that honestly has not been eliminated to this day. Why anyone, especially
people in this community, would expect someone else to willingly open
themselves up to that treatment is beyond me.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Derek Rodner wrote:
> Bill,
> There are some issues, however, like our performance claim, that could
> cause some community members to have concern to be upset with us. In
> those cases, I want to know!!! You can go to the core team and Bruce
I have said this before. If you are faster, prove it. Then there is
nothing anyone can complain about :). That is the problem in a nutshell,
you "say" you are faster. There are no metrics, no test data, no
benchmarks, no specifications not even a pretty graph :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== 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/
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 10:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andreas Pflug wrote: > > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > > > >> EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL > > > >> > > > > > > > > This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific > > > > workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature > > > > called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a > > > > good job. > > > > > > > Please note that the website doesn't mention "untuned". We all know that > > > an untuned PostgreSQL is usually slower than a tuned installation. > > > Autotuning is a fine feature, but the EnterpriseDB website and marketing > > > stuff gives the impression that the Enterprise _core_ system is 200 % > > > better. > > > > I did find that referenced here: > > > > http://www.enterprisedb.com/downloads/datasheets/EnterpriseDB_Advanced_Server.pdf > > > > EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world.s most > > advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > > Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > > PostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster. > > > > Notice the marketing-twist "up to". Like, "save up to 99%" in a store window. > > Lucky they don't let either of us work in marketing then, eh? Yea, personally, when I see "up to" in an advertisement I assume someone is trying to deceive me in some way. It sets off alarm bells in my head. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > - how it is that you say "We are the only dedicated PostgreSQL company, > > focusing all of our efforts on the promotion and proliferation of pure > > PostgreSQL", > > Where did you get that quote, because I don't see it anywhere. We do > say, "Command Prompt, Inc. is the oldest and only dedicated PostgreSQL > support provider in North America. Since 1997, we have been developing, > supporting, deploying and advocating the use of the ?World's Most > Advanced Open Source Database?." > > Which has been the source of some confusion in the past because of > consultants such as David Fetter and Elein but overall I believe it is > accurate. > > > > when on the very same page you offer for sale a product > > which is clearly not part of pure PostgreSQL and you have stated clearly > > that you have chosen not to contribute to the PostgreSQL project. > > http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ > > That is true. We have PostgreSQL replicator which "is" pure postgresql, > with added replication bits. It is also closed source and we don't hide > that fact in any way. I believe the distinction CMD is trying to make is that they are the "only dedicated PostgreSQL _support_ provider" (emphasis added), rather than a dedicated PostgreSQL _software_ provider. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:05:47AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:05 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Please can you explain >> - why you claim to be "The" PostgreSQL Company, when there are many such >> companies around the world. If you don't wish to mislead anyone, then >> this clearly should be "A PostgreSQL Company: ....". > > Yes I have heard this argument. I still consider us "The PostgreSQL > Company". Why? I don't want to get into a discussion on who has more developers and who counts as a developer and who doesn't but I'd like to know why you use "the". Now I'm not a native speaker, but judging from what I learned in school I would think Simon is right about the usage of "the" vs. "a". But then again, this wouldn't be the only thing in school that wasn't correct. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Derek Rodner wrote: > Folks, > > I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of > EnterpriseDB. > > First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone > besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB > Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other > commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies > hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one > of the benefits of being a proprietary product. > > Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim. I stand behind > this statement 100%. After all, they are my words. And, remember, as > Bruce said, it is marketing. There is a subtle linkage here. You "don't want other companies hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster", but you turn around and do that to the PostgreSQL community version. What am I not understanding here? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>: > On Friday 13 July 2007 11:37, Bill Moran wrote: > > In response to "Derek Rodner" <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com>: > > > Folks, > > > > > > I would like to join the discussion regarding the marketing of > > > EnterpriseDB. > > > > > > First, let me address the benchmarking issue. We do restrict anyone > > > besides EnterpriseDB from publishing benchmarks for EnterpriseDB > > > Advanced Server. It is a standard practice that almost every other > > > commercial vendor follows. After all, we don't want other companies > > > hobbling our technology and claiming they are x times faster. It is one > > > of the benefits of being a proprietary product. > > > > Unfortunately, you are also an open-source-friendly company. I want to > > start out by saying how much I appreciate that fact. > > > > But the truth is that bigshot open-source companies are held to a higher > > standard than other companies. Look at the slack Google took with the > > whole China thing. Anyone else would have gone unnoticed. > > FWIW that was really over the fact that Google touted "do no evil" as part of > the company mission. It was a reference, not intended to be a perfect comparison. EDB claims to be PG community-oriented, thus they are held to a higher standard in their dealings with the community. But there's a bit more to it. Open source, by it's very nature, has an air of "doing good for the world" to it. Thus, "do no evil" is somewhat implied by anyone who claims to be a proponent of open source. > It had nothing to do with thier open-source-ness, if > anything they get a pass on a lot of things *because* they are open-source > friendly, not in spite of it). While I'm sure everyone has their own opinion on this, the China incident lowered my opinion of Google. My initial reaction was "Well, they had a good run, now they're going down the drain." > > And restricting people from publishing benchmarks is wrong. I do > > understand your position -- competitors hobbling your product is very evil. > > But, in spite of sounding childish, "two wrongs don't make a right". > > When Great Bridge did it's initial performance testing of databases, it found > PostgreSQL performance was already on par with other database systems, and > this is close to 10 years ago. But a slew of poorley concieved and > improperly executed benchmarks from netizens (usually comparing us with > MySQL) has plauged postgresql with a reputation of poor performance for years > that honestly has not been eliminated to this day. Why anyone, especially > people in this community, would expect someone else to willingly open > themselves up to that treatment is beyond me. Thus my comment that I can understand their reasons. I still think it's the obligation of anyone who is capable to stand up to bullshit like this and fight back. Yes, it sucks, it will require EDB to carefully and loudly debunk any poorly done benchmarks. It'll cost them extra money. But that does not change the question of whether or not it's the right thing to do. It only creates the question of whether or not EDB is strong enough to take on that battle at this time, and whether they're committed enough to do it. Here's a question for someone at EDB: If I ran a benchmark that demonstrates that database X is faster than EDB, then present my findings to your people and you find it to be honestly and fairly done, would you allow me to publish it? If the answer is "yes", then I find no problem with your approach. If the answer is "no", then EDB drops down to an 8 in my view. But again, that's just me. I can't speak for the masses. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
Simon Riggs wrote: > I got it off your web site this morning and it is still there, on the > link I gave. > > If you sell a closed source product as well, then the word "dedicated" > cannot apply to you. Even if you claim it does, your stretching of the > definition of that word would necessarily include EnterpriseDB (and > others), so the word "only" would then be invalid. > > Your logic is erroneous and you are not "the only dedicated PostgreSQL > support provider" in North America. I think CMD can claim to be the _largest_ dedicated PostgreSQL _support_ provider in North America. However, they support CMD closed-source products too, so why is CMD a dedicated PostgreSQL support company and EDB is not? I know I posted earlier today that CMD was dedicated to PostgreSQL support, but now I am not sure how this is any different than how EDB's PostgreSQL support. The bottom line is that the CMD tag line is looking more like an "up to" marketing twist to me the more I think about it. (Not that that is a bad thing, of course. ;-)) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bill Moran wrote: > Here's a question for someone at EDB: If I ran a benchmark that demonstrates > that database X is faster than EDB, then present my findings to your people > and you find it to be honestly and fairly done, would you allow me to > publish it? A larger question is whether EDB would sue a community member who did it without their permission. Can you imagine that PR nightmare? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>: > Bill Moran wrote: > > Here's a question for someone at EDB: If I ran a benchmark that demonstrates > > that database X is faster than EDB, then present my findings to your people > > and you find it to be honestly and fairly done, would you allow me to > > publish it? > > A larger question is whether EDB would sue a community member who did it > without their permission. Can you imagine that PR nightmare? Interesting twist. It's one of those things -- if you take it at face value it seems pretty rough, but if you look deeper, you realize that the practical side of it means that EDB can protect themselves from bullshit if need be. The other problem is that (as I understand law, although I'm no lawyer) if a community member _did_ do such a thing, and EDB decided not to sue for the reason you mention, they would weaken any lawsuit they would make thereafter, because of the whole "failure to enforce" thing. For that reason, I believe that EDB would _have_ to sue, in spite of the rift it would cause. Again, these are the things about business that I hate. Could a court be made to understand that there was no reason to sue someone who did an honest benchmark, but they should be upheld in suing someone who did a biased benchmark? Or would the court simply whine that, "your terms say X, and you were inconsistent in your enforcement of them."? -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> Open source, by it's very nature, has an air of "doing good for the
> world" to it. Thus, "do no evil" is somewhat implied by anyone who
> claims to be a proponent of open source.
This is getting off-topic for the list, I think, but I have to
disagree strongly with this description of the "very nature" of "open
source". Indeed, the term "open source" was coined precisely to get
_away_ from that do-gooder reputation of the old "Free Software"
moniker, and to emphasise the simple, practical benefits of having
source code that you can modify.
I don't believe for an instant that IBM, for instance, is intending
to do good for the world by working on Linux. They're trying to run
a business, and they think that by getting involved in this way, they
can get some hunk of the market. (IBM is simply too big to want to
do good or ill: they have to be run more or less exclusively on
whatever sells stuff and makes shareholders leave management alone.)
Similarly, Stonebraker wasn't doing harm to the world when he tried
to commercialise Ingres (or Postgres!). There are plenty of
different motivations that people have for placing their code under
an open source license. I'm happy they're doing it whatever their
motivation.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I got it off your web site this morning and it is still there, on the
>> link I gave.
>>
>> If you sell a closed source product as well, then the word "dedicated"
>> cannot apply to you. Even if you claim it does, your stretching of the
>> definition of that word would necessarily include EnterpriseDB (and
>> others), so the word "only" would then be invalid.
>>
>> Your logic is erroneous and you are not "the only dedicated PostgreSQL
>> support provider" in North America.
>
> I think CMD can claim to be the _largest_ dedicated PostgreSQL _support_
> provider in North America.
>
> However, they support CMD closed-source products too, so why is CMD a
> dedicated PostgreSQL support company and EDB is not?
If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres,
will that APP run?
>
> I know I posted earlier today that CMD was dedicated to PostgreSQL
> support, but now I am not sure how this is any different than how EDB's
> PostgreSQL support.
EDB has made it very clear that EDB is not PostgreSQL but that it is
"based" on postgresql and that EDB is "better" than PostgreSQL.
CMD on the other hand is very clear that our only closed source product
*is* PostgreSQL but it has replication integrated.
Mammoth PostgreSQL + Replication, is 100% pure PostgreSQL with
integrated replication.
In fact one of our other "products" which is PostgreSQL Core, clearly
states that:
PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the
PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this
excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and
commercially supported.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> The bottom line is that the CMD tag line is looking more like an "up to"
> marketing twist to me the more I think about it. (Not that that is a
> bad thing, of course. ;-))
>
--
=== 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/
On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres, > will that APP run? As long as you don't use the Oracle-compatible features... yes, it most certainly will. We spend a lot of time and effort to make sure 100% compatibility with PostgreSQL is maintained. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres, > will that APP run? Yes, provided you don't use any of the Oracle-compatible features. That is one of the standing requirements of any changes we make, per our CTO. >> I know I posted earlier today that CMD was dedicated to PostgreSQL >> support, but now I am not sure how this is any different than how EDB's >> PostgreSQL support. > > EDB has made it very clear that EDB is not PostgreSQL but that it is > "based" on postgresql and that EDB is "better" than PostgreSQL. EDB the *product* is based on PostgreSQL and adds Oracle compatibility features as well as DynaTune and other performance improvements (virtually all of which get offered back to the community), but you're missing the fact that we also support for customers running community PostgreSQL. So, CMD support PostgreSQL and their proprietary Mammoth Replicator enhanced version, whilst EDB support PostgreSQL and our proprietary EnterpriseDB Advanced Server. So I think the only real difference is in the enhancements we offer in our respective proprietary versions - you offer an integrated replication solution, we offer Oracle compatibility. Regards, Dave.
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres,
>> will that APP run?
>
> As long as you don't use the Oracle-compatible features... yes, it
> most certainly will. We spend a lot of time and effort to make sure
> 100% compatibility with PostgreSQL is maintained.
That kind of makes my point :)
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== 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/
On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > That kind of makes my point :) What point? That using Oracle-proprietary syntax isn't compatible with PostgreSQL? I don't know anyone who would think that it would be. In fact, we have several customers who run EnterpriseDB, but choose not to utilize the Oracle compatibility features. Which gives them the option of going to PostgreSQL should they ever want to. The fact is, if you write a PostgreSQL-only app, it will run perfectly on PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB. Like Dave and I said, it's EnterpriseDB's policy to ensure that PostgreSQL compatibility is fully maintained. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> That kind of makes my point :)
> The fact is, if you write a PostgreSQL-only app, it will run perfectly
> on PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB.
But that isn't what I asked. I asked if I wrote an EnterpriseDB app
would it run on PostgreSQL, the answer is clearly no. Yes, yes we can of
course not use Enterprise (Oracle) features, but one of the benefits of
EnterpriseDB is that I "can" use those Oracle features.
That is my only point.
Joshua D. Drake
> Like Dave and I said, it's
> EnterpriseDB's policy to ensure that PostgreSQL compatibility is fully
> maintained.
>
--
=== 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/
On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > But that isn't what I asked. I asked if I wrote an EnterpriseDB app > would it run on PostgreSQL, the answer is clearly no. Yes, yes we can of > course not use Enterprise (Oracle) features, but one of the benefits of > EnterpriseDB is that I "can" use those Oracle features. > > That is my only point. OK. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Dave Page wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres,
>> will that APP run?
> So I think the only real difference is in the enhancements we offer in
> our respective proprietary versions - you offer an integrated
> replication solution, we offer Oracle compatibility.
>
EDB has made it very clear that EDB is not PostgreSQL but that it is
"based" on postgresql and that EDB is "better" than PostgreSQL.
CMD on the other hand is very clear that our only closed source product
*is* PostgreSQL but it has replication integrated.
Mammoth PostgreSQL + Replication, is 100% pure PostgreSQL with
integrated replication.
In fact one of our other "products" which is PostgreSQL Core, clearly
states that:
PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the
PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this
excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and
commercially supported.
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
--
=== 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/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres, >>> will that APP run? > >> So I think the only real difference is in the enhancements we offer in >> our respective proprietary versions - you offer an integrated >> replication solution, we offer Oracle compatibility. >> > > EDB has made it very clear that EDB is not PostgreSQL but that it is > "based" on postgresql and that EDB is "better" than PostgreSQL. > > CMD on the other hand is very clear that our only closed source product > *is* PostgreSQL but it has replication integrated. > > Mammoth PostgreSQL + Replication, is 100% pure PostgreSQL with > integrated replication. > > In fact one of our other "products" which is PostgreSQL Core, clearly > states that: > > PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the > PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this > excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and > commercially supported. Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD are THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. What remains true, is that both our companies offer fine products that are derived from Community PostgreSQL, but ARE NOT Community PostgreSQL (if you doubt that, md5sum is your friend). We also both offer support for our own products, and the community versions. If you're going to argue that adding a replication engine means you remain a "PostgreSQL Company", but us adding Oracle compatibility whilst retaining all PostgreSQL features and syntax means we no longer are, then with all due respect, you need to cut back on the coffee :-) Regards, Dave PS. I spent all day resisting the temptation to jump into this thread, but I regret that the urge was too great :-(
Dave Page wrote: > EDB the *product* is based on PostgreSQL and adds Oracle compatibility > features as well as DynaTune and other performance improvements > (virtually all of which get offered back to the community), Do I miss something or has DynaTune' features not been offered back so far? While I regard Oracle features as beyond pgsql's scope, automatic tuning appears as valuable extension to core pgsql. Regards, Andreas
On Jul 13, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> That kind of makes my point :) >> The fact is, if you write a PostgreSQL-only app, it will run >> perfectly >> on PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB. > > But that isn't what I asked. I asked if I wrote an EnterpriseDB app > would it run on PostgreSQL, the answer is clearly no. Yes, yes we > can of course not use Enterprise (Oracle) features, but one of the > benefits of EnterpriseDB is that I "can" use those Oracle features. > > That is my only point. And if someone buys Mammoth and sets up replication, they're just as locked-in. Actually more-so, since EnterpriseDB can be used as a "bridge" to get you from Oracle to PostgreSQL or vice-versa. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > But that isn't what I asked. I asked if I wrote an EnterpriseDB app would it > run on PostgreSQL, the answer is clearly no. Yes, yes we can of course not > use Enterprise (Oracle) features, but one of the benefits of EnterpriseDB is > that I "can" use those Oracle features. > So if I setup my application using Mammoth Replicator and then I move to pure postgresql will my data magically be replicated? Of course not. Kris Jurka
Dave Page wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the
>> PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this
>> excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and
>> commercially supported.
>
> Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD are
> THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company.
Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating factor
for us.
>
> What remains true, is that both our companies offer fine products that
> are derived from Community PostgreSQL, but ARE NOT Community PostgreSQL
> (if you doubt that, md5sum is your friend). We also both offer support
> for our own products, and the community versions.
>
No what remains true is your company sells Advanced Server as is its
right and further claims that it is "better" than PostgreSQL.
CMD sells Replicator as is its right and further claims that is *is*
PostgreSQL just with added replication. We don't downplay PostgreSQL, we
embrace it. We don't market our product as better, we market it as
PostgreSQL with an additional feature for those who require it. Our
entire product line *is* PostgreSQL or a PostgreSQL utility (Slony).
That is the distinction.
For CMD there is nothing better than PostgreSQL and the few out there
that try to make something better are destined to fail as the community
continues to grow and build yet a better product.
The *only* reason replicator exists in its current form is that the
community has clearly stated that PostgreSQL will not ship with
integrated replication.
> If you're going to argue that adding a replication engine means you
> remain a "PostgreSQL Company", but us adding Oracle compatibility whilst
> retaining all PostgreSQL features and syntax means we no longer are,
> then with all due respect, you need to cut back on the coffee :-)
This point is not about technology. It is about ideals.
>
> PS. I spent all day resisting the temptation to jump into this thread,
> but I regret that the urge was too great :-(
>
Yeah good luck with that ;)
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== 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/
On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: >> Open source, by it's very nature, has an air of "doing good for the >> world" to it. Thus, "do no evil" is somewhat implied by anyone who >> claims to be a proponent of open source. > > This is getting off-topic for the list, I think, but I have to Actually, I think it's very on-topic. It's very important to me that we have a strong relationship between the community and commercial companies, and part of that is discussing what people's expectations are of companies > disagree strongly with this description of the "very nature" of "open > source". Indeed, the term "open source" was coined precisely to get > _away_ from that do-gooder reputation of the old "Free Software" > moniker, and to emphasise the simple, practical benefits of having > source code that you can modify. > > I don't believe for an instant that IBM, for instance, is intending > to do good for the world by working on Linux. They're trying to run > a business, and they think that by getting involved in this way, they > can get some hunk of the market. (IBM is simply too big to want to > do good or ill: they have to be run more or less exclusively on > whatever sells stuff and makes shareholders leave management alone.) > Similarly, Stonebraker wasn't doing harm to the world when he tried > to commercialise Ingres (or Postgres!). There are plenty of > different motivations that people have for placing their code under > an open source license. I'm happy they're doing it whatever their > motivation. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>>> On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>>> That kind of makes my point :)
>>> The fact is, if you write a PostgreSQL-only app, it will run perfectly
>>> on PostgreSQL or EnterpriseDB.
>>
>> But that isn't what I asked. I asked if I wrote an EnterpriseDB app
>> would it run on PostgreSQL, the answer is clearly no. Yes, yes we can
>> of course not use Enterprise (Oracle) features, but one of the
>> benefits of EnterpriseDB is that I "can" use those Oracle features.
>>
>> That is my only point.
>
> And if someone buys Mammoth and sets up replication, they're just as
> locked-in.
Nope.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== 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/
Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> But that isn't what I asked. I asked if I wrote an EnterpriseDB app
>> would it run on PostgreSQL, the answer is clearly no. Yes, yes we can
>> of course not use Enterprise (Oracle) features, but one of the
>> benefits of EnterpriseDB is that I "can" use those Oracle features.
>>
>
> So if I setup my application using Mammoth Replicator and then I move to
> pure postgresql will my data magically be replicated? Of course not.
replicated? No. Available and your app just runs? Yes.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Kris Jurka
>
> ---------------------------(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/
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Dave Page wrote:
Regardless of this whole thread about CMD, it's not cool for a
company selling PostgreSQL support to be slagging PostgreSQL.
Which was the point of the original post last night. No one from EDB can
legitimize that.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== 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/
Sorry, itchy-send-button. On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:21:36PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: >>> Open source, by it's very nature, has an air of "doing good for the >>> world" to it. Thus, "do no evil" is somewhat implied by anyone who >>> claims to be a proponent of open source. >> >> This is getting off-topic for the list, I think, but I have to Actually, I think it's very on-topic. It's very important to me that we have a strong relationship between the community and commercial companies, and part of that is discussing what people's expectations are of companies that are making use of our open-source technology. >> disagree strongly with this description of the "very nature" of "open >> source". Indeed, the term "open source" was coined precisely to get >> _away_ from that do-gooder reputation of the old "Free Software" >> moniker, and to emphasise the simple, practical benefits of having >> source code that you can modify. >> >> I don't believe for an instant that IBM, for instance, is intending >> to do good for the world by working on Linux. They're trying to run >> a business, and they think that by getting involved in this way, they >> can get some hunk of the market. (IBM is simply too big to want to >> do good or ill: they have to be run more or less exclusively on >> whatever sells stuff and makes shareholders leave management alone.) >> Similarly, Stonebraker wasn't doing harm to the world when he tried >> to commercialise Ingres (or Postgres!). There are plenty of >> different motivations that people have for placing their code under >> an open source license. I'm happy they're doing it whatever their >> motivation. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Denis Lussier wrote: > > Not sure how/why this got a little nasty. EDB amd CMDP are friends and > competitors, but, we are both good PG companies. I agree and I agree. > EDB will NOT write > another press release like the one that just came out. Additionally, > EDB will clarify on our website that an expertly compiled and tuned PG > 8.2 database will run at the same speed as an expertly tuned EDB 8.2 > Database. Excellent! Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > --Luss > > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Dave Page > Sent: Fri 7/13/2007 4:53 PM > To: Joshua D. Drake > Cc: Bruce Momjian; Simon Riggs; PostgreSQL Advocacy List > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL > relatedpressrelease > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres, > >>> will that APP run? > > > >> So I think the only real difference is in the enhancements we offer in > >> our respective proprietary versions - you offer an integrated > >> replication solution, we offer Oracle compatibility. > >> > > > > EDB has made it very clear that EDB is not PostgreSQL but that it is > > "based" on postgresql and that EDB is "better" than PostgreSQL. > > > > CMD on the other hand is very clear that our only closed source product > > *is* PostgreSQL but it has replication integrated. > > > > Mammoth PostgreSQL + Replication, is 100% pure PostgreSQL with > > integrated replication. > > > > In fact one of our other "products" which is PostgreSQL Core, clearly > > states that: > > > > PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the > > PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this > > excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and > > commercially supported. > > Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD are > THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. > > What remains true, is that both our companies offer fine products that > are derived from Community PostgreSQL, but ARE NOT Community PostgreSQL > (if you doubt that, md5sum is your friend). We also both offer support > for our own products, and the community versions. > > If you're going to argue that adding a replication engine means you > remain a "PostgreSQL Company", but us adding Oracle compatibility whilst > retaining all PostgreSQL features and syntax means we no longer are, > then with all due respect, you need to cut back on the coffee :-) > > Regards, Dave > > PS. I spent all day resisting the temptation to jump into this thread, > but I regret that the urge was too great :-( > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > > -- === 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/
Not sure how/why this got a little nasty. EDB amd CMDP are friends and competitors, but, we are both good PG companies. EDB will NOT write another press release like the one that just came out. Additionally, EDB will clarify on our website that an expertly compiled and tuned PG 8.2 database will run at the same speed as an expertly tuned EDB 8.2 Database.
--Luss
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Dave Page
Sent: Fri 7/13/2007 4:53 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake
Cc: Bruce Momjian; Simon Riggs; PostgreSQL Advocacy List
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres,
>>> will that APP run?
>
>> So I think the only real difference is in the enhancements we offer in
>> our respective proprietary versions - you offer an integrated
>> replication solution, we offer Oracle compatibility.
>>
>
> EDB has made it very clear that EDB is not PostgreSQL but that it is
> "based" on postgresql and that EDB is "better" than PostgreSQL.
>
> CMD on the other hand is very clear that our only closed source product
> *is* PostgreSQL but it has replication integrated.
>
> Mammoth PostgreSQL + Replication, is 100% pure PostgreSQL with
> integrated replication.
>
> In fact one of our other "products" which is PostgreSQL Core, clearly
> states that:
>
> PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the
> PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this
> excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and
> commercially supported.
Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD are
THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company.
What remains true, is that both our companies offer fine products that
are derived from Community PostgreSQL, but ARE NOT Community PostgreSQL
(if you doubt that, md5sum is your friend). We also both offer support
for our own products, and the community versions.
If you're going to argue that adding a replication engine means you
remain a "PostgreSQL Company", but us adding Oracle compatibility whilst
retaining all PostgreSQL features and syntax means we no longer are,
then with all due respect, you need to cut back on the coffee :-)
Regards, Dave
PS. I spent all day resisting the temptation to jump into this thread,
but I regret that the urge was too great :-(
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:23:04PM -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
> companies, and part of that is discussing what people's expectations
> are of companies that are making use of our open-source technology.
The communitiy's opinion on that is, I think, clear. It's in the
license. And that says, "Do what you want, just don't sue us and
don't change copyright on the code." Add on -- and sell (as closed
source if you like, or as GPL if you like, or as
your-new-needless-license-here if you like) -- Dynatune, Replicator,
Bob's PostgreSQL Uncle, or whatever. It's a good thing if people
take this excellent community resource, and make it better in this or
that way.
I would personally _prefer_ that such enhancements be released to the
community under the same terms as PostgreSQL is, but I have a clear
(and much deeper than I really want) understanding of why that's not
always possible or desirable. That is part of the marvellous
flexibility of the BSD license, and of the model where no one company
or membership-based group has some sort of lock on what you can do
with the basic functionality. This way has worked well for
PostgreSQL in much the way it has worked well for the Internet. I
take the continuing successes of each to be empirical evidence that
the model works.
The original complaint, as far as I could tell, was to do with how
community members were _talking_ about the community's code. As far
as I can see, that issue is completely closed, because several people
who are in a position to speak for EnterpriseDB have said what they
want to change in the way they phrase their message. Having been on
both sides of the pointy-hair-enabling desk, I also have a perfectly
good idea of how the best of intentions in sending out a message can
get turned into something that annoys one's allies. I think we
should all just chalk this whole thing up to a simple
misunderstanding and move on. (And, not incidentally, stop trying to
manage various companies' business communications or
revenue-generating schemes.)
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>Dave Page wrote: > >> > >>PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the > >>PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this > >>excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and > >>commercially supported. > > > >Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD are > >THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. > > Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating factor > for us. It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many people have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5. Sincerely, David who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Andreas Pflug wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> EDB the *product* is based on PostgreSQL and adds Oracle compatibility >> features as well as DynaTune and other performance improvements >> (virtually all of which get offered back to the community), > Do I miss something or has DynaTune' features not been offered back so far? > While I regard Oracle features as beyond pgsql's scope, automatic tuning > appears as valuable extension to core pgsql. Hi Andreas, DynaTune has not been offered back as far as I'm aware. I do not know if management are intending to do so in the future. Regards, Dave.
Am Freitag, 13. Juli 2007 21:37 schrieb Jonah H. Harris: > On 7/13/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > If you write a application for EDB, take EDB out and plug in postgres, > > will that APP run? > > As long as you don't use the Oracle-compatible features... yes, it > most certainly will. We spend a lot of time and effort to make sure > 100% compatibility with PostgreSQL is maintained. How are necessarily incompatible features such as the empty string vs. null handled? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On 7/16/07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > How are necessarily incompatible features such as the empty string vs. null > handled? In some of the Oracle-specific compatibility functions, we work around stuff like NULL-concatenation. But PostgreSQL's method is maintained and the default. -- Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris@enterprisedb.com Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
--On Montag, Juli 16, 2007 08:22:43 -0400 "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/16/07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> How are necessarily incompatible features such as the empty string vs. >> null handled? > > In some of the Oracle-specific compatibility functions, we work around > stuff like NULL-concatenation. But PostgreSQL's method is maintained > and the default. But the real interesting parts are NULL-handling emulation which affects unique index behavior (yes i know this is bad style, but i saw it quite often) and/or NULL comparisons. What about OUTER JOIN syntax, PL/SQL? I mean, that's what i'd expect from an oracle compatible database layer and i was always under the impression that's what EDB wants to deliver. (Don't get me wrong, i don't want to be rude, it's just out of curiousity) -- Bernd
Andreas, > Do I miss something or has DynaTune' features not been offered back so far? > While I regard Oracle features as beyond pgsql's scope, automatic tuning > appears as valuable extension to core pgsql. Not so far. They're keeping it for and EDB value-add; after all, they do need to please those venture capitalists by selling some licenses. I figure we'll get it as soon as the community autotuner looks likely to get somewhere. It's the way most value-adds for PostgreSQL have worked for the last 5 years. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
On Jul 14, 3:04 pm, da...@fetter.org (David Fetter) wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > > >Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >>Dave Page wrote: > > > >>PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by the > > >>PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to this > > >>excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and > > >>commercially supported. > > > >Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD are > > >THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. > > > Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating factor > > for us. > > It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many people > have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been > doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other > companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop > this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5. > > Sincerely, > David > who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD. To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companies other than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQL Company" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn't seem all that reasonable. CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'd waste the attention of a potential client with what is clearly marketing speak. Andrew
Folks,
I wanted to let you know that we have changed the text on our website
from:
EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most
advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database
Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of
PostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster.
To:
EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most
advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database
Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of
PostgreSQL while adding Oracle compatibility and DynaTune(tm), an
automated tuning function that reduces the need to continually manage
performance.
We will be making the same change to our data sheet as well.
Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hammond
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:38 PM
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL
relatedpressrelease
On Jul 14, 3:04 pm, da...@fetter.org (David Fetter) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Dave Page wrote:
> > >Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >>Dave Page wrote:
>
> > >>PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by
the
> > >>PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to
this
> > >>excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and
> > >>commercially supported.
>
> > >Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD
are
> > >THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company.
>
> > Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating
factor
> > for us.
>
> It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many people
> have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been
> doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other
> companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop
> this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5.
>
> Sincerely,
> David
> who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD.
To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companies
other than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQL
Company" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn't
seem all that reasonable.
CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'd
waste the attention of a potential client with what is clearly
marketing speak.
Andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
That was fast, in fact, 200% faster than I expected. ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Rodner wrote: > Folks, > > I wanted to let you know that we have changed the text on our website > from: > > EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most > advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > PostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster. > > To: > EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most > advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > PostgreSQL while adding Oracle compatibility and DynaTune(tm), an > automated tuning function that reduces the need to continually manage > performance. > > We will be making the same change to our data sheet as well. > > > Derek M. Rodner > Director, Product Strategy > EnterpriseDB Corporation > 732.331.1333 office > 484.252.1943 cell > www.enterprisedb.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hammond > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:38 PM > To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL > relatedpressrelease > > On Jul 14, 3:04 pm, da...@fetter.org (David Fetter) wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > >Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>Dave Page wrote: > > > > > >>PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by > the > > > >>PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to > this > > > >>excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and > > > >>commercially supported. > > > > > >Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD > are > > > >THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. > > > > > Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating > factor > > > for us. > > > > It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many people > > have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been > > doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other > > companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop > > this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5. > > > > Sincerely, > > David > > who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD. > > To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companies > other than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQL > Company" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn't > seem all that reasonable. > > CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'd > waste the attention of a potential client with what is clearly > marketing speak. > > Andrew > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 04:19:37PM -0400, Derek Rodner wrote: > Folks, > > I wanted to let you know that we have changed the text on our website > from: > > EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most > advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > PostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster. > > To: > EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most > advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > PostgreSQL while adding Oracle compatibility and DynaTune(tm), an > automated tuning function that reduces the need to continually manage > performance. Good on you! :) Cheers, David. > > We will be making the same change to our data sheet as well. > > > Derek M. Rodner > Director, Product Strategy > EnterpriseDB Corporation > 732.331.1333 office > 484.252.1943 cell > www.enterprisedb.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hammond > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:38 PM > To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL > relatedpressrelease > > On Jul 14, 3:04 pm, da...@fetter.org (David Fetter) wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > >Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>Dave Page wrote: > > > > > >>PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by > the > > > >>PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to > this > > > >>excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and > > > >>commercially supported. > > > > > >Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD > are > > > >THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. > > > > > Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating > factor > > > for us. > > > > It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many people > > have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been > > doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other > > companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop > > this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5. > > > > Sincerely, > > David > > who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD. > > To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companies > other than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQL > Company" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn't > seem all that reasonable. > > CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'd > waste the attention of a potential client with what is clearly > marketing speak. > > Andrew > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Bruce Momjian wrote: > That was fast, in fact, 200% faster than I expected. ;-) > >> To: >> EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most >> advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database >> Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of >> PostgreSQL while adding Oracle compatibility and DynaTune(tm), an >> automated tuning function that reduces the need to continually manage >> performance. >> >> We will be making the same change to our data sheet as well. Looks great! Joshua D. Drake >> >> >> Derek M. Rodner >> Director, Product Strategy >> EnterpriseDB Corporation >> 732.331.1333 office >> 484.252.1943 cell >> www.enterprisedb.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hammond >> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:38 PM >> To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org >> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL >> relatedpressrelease >> >> On Jul 14, 3:04 pm, da...@fetter.org (David Fetter) wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>> Dave Page wrote: >>>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>>>> Dave Page wrote: >>>>>> PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by >> the >>>>>> PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to >> this >>>>>> excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and >>>>>> commercially supported. >>>>> Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD >> are >>>>> THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. >>>> Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating >> factor >>>> for us. >>> It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many people >>> have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been >>> doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other >>> companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop >>> this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> David >>> who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD. >> To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companies >> other than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQL >> Company" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn't >> seem all that reasonable. >> >> CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'd >> waste the attention of a potential client with what is clearly >> marketing speak. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to >> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not >> match > -- === 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/
Andrew Hammond wrote: > > It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many people > > have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been > > doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other > > companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop > > this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5. > > > > Sincerely, > > David > > who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD. > > To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companies > other than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQL > Company" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn't > seem all that reasonable. > > CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'd > waste the attention of a potential client with what is clearly > marketing speak. I think the summary is that in CMD's eye, independent consultants are too small to be companies, and EnterpriseDB's changes to PostgreSQL are too big, so like "The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears", CMD, in their eyes, is "just right" as "The PostgreSQL Company". ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
good morning,
the texts on your website must be wonderful.
but it is good enough to justify spamming this mailing list?
best regards,
hans
On Jul 17, 2007, at 10:19 PM, Derek Rodner wrote:
Folks,I wanted to let you know that we have changed the text on our websitefrom:EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's mostadvanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB DatabaseServer. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability ofPostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster.To:EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's mostadvanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB DatabaseServer. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability ofPostgreSQL while adding Oracle compatibility and DynaTune(tm), anautomated tuning function that reduces the need to continually manageperformance.We will be making the same change to our data sheet as well.Derek M. RodnerDirector, Product StrategyEnterpriseDB Corporation732.331.1333 office484.252.1943 cellwww.enterprisedb.com-----Original Message-----[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew HammondSent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:38 PMSubject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQLrelatedpressreleaseOn Jul 14, 3:04 pm, da...@fetter.org (David Fetter) wrote:On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:Dave Page wrote:Joshua D. Drake wrote:Dave Page wrote:PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed bythePostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors tothisexcellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready andcommercially supported.Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMDareTHE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company.Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiatingfactorfor us.It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many peoplehave told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has beendoing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are othercompanies not based in North America that do the same. Please stopthis, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5.Sincerely,Davidwho also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD.To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companiesother than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQLCompany" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn'tseem all that reasonable.CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'dwaste the attention of a potential client with what is clearlymarketing speak.Andrew---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire tochoose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do notmatch
--
Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, 2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at
I assume you just missed the part of the thread where several members of the community requested that this change be made? We can hardly fault Derek for letting us know that this has now happened, and it's certainly not spam IMHO. I'd rather say kudos to Derek for listening to the community and maknig this change happen so quickly. //Magnus On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 07:41:40AM +0200, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote: > good morning, > > the texts on your website must be wonderful. > but it is good enough to justify spamming this mailing list? > > best regards, > > hans > > > > On Jul 17, 2007, at 10:19 PM, Derek Rodner wrote: > > >Folks, > > > >I wanted to let you know that we have changed the text on our website > >from: > > > >EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most > >advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > >Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > >PostgreSQL while performing up to 200% faster. > > > >To: > >EnterpriseDB substantially enhanced PostgreSQL, the world's most > >advanced open source database, to create the EnterpriseDB Database > >Server. The product retains the legendary stability and reliability of > >PostgreSQL while adding Oracle compatibility and DynaTune(tm), an > >automated tuning function that reduces the need to continually manage > >performance. > > > >We will be making the same change to our data sheet as well. > > > > > >Derek M. Rodner > >Director, Product Strategy > >EnterpriseDB Corporation > >732.331.1333 office > >484.252.1943 cell > >www.enterprisedb.com > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org > >[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Andrew > >Hammond > >Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:38 PM > >To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org > >Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL > >relatedpressrelease > > > >On Jul 14, 3:04 pm, da...@fetter.org (David Fetter) wrote: > >>On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:06:14PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>>Dave Page wrote: > >>>>Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>>>>Dave Page wrote: > >> > >>>>>PostgreSQL Core is the distribution developed and distributed by > >the > >>>>>PostgreSQL.Org community. We are one of the many contributors to > >this > >>>>>excellent database software. It is 100% enterprise ready and > >>>>>commercially supported. > >> > >>>>Which means what exactly? Precisely nothing as far as whether CMD > >are > >>>>THE PostgreSQL Company or A PostgreSQL Company. > >> > >>>Precisely nothing to you, which I accept. It a differentiating > >factor > >>>for us. > >> > >>It also happens to be objectively false and misleading, as many > >>people > >>have told you many times. To take one example, Varlena LLC has been > >>doing exclusively PostgreSQL for quite some time. There are other > >>companies not based in North America that do the same. Please stop > >>this, keeping in mind that business in Matthew 7:1-5. > >> > >>Sincerely, > >>David > >>who also does PostgreSQL exclusively, and doesn't work at CMD. > > > >To the point, if you are willing to accept that there are companies > >other than CMD which could be reasonably described as "A PostgreSQL > >Company" then CMD calling themselves "The PostgreSQL Company" doesn't > >seem all that reasonable. > > > >CMD has a lot to offer as a company. I can't understand why they'd > >waste the attention of a potential client with what is clearly > >marketing speak. > > > >Andrew
Derek Rodner wrote: > Second, let's talk about the "up to 200% faster" claim. I stand behind > this statement 100%. I so expected you to say "I stand behind this statement up to 100%". > After all, they are my words. And, remember, as Bruce said, > it is marketing ... So, in some very real cases, we ARE faster > than PostgreSQL. Seems an amusing & fair thing to do would be if the next PostgreSQL community press release says: "PostgreSQL 8.X - up to 200% faster than EnterpriseDB".