Thread: POSTGRESQL vs. ORACLE 8i &Sybase & Interbase etc

I am looking for a good head to head comparison of the latest
rdbms's and how they match up performance scalibilty out of the
box with POSTGRESQL.

Thanks !!!

streethockey@ureach.com

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number - Free
Free voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> I am looking for a good head to head comparison of the latest
> rdbms's and how they match up performance scalibilty out of the
> box with POSTGRESQL.

Alas, most commercial rdbms's (i.e., oracle, informix, MS SQL, etc.) do
not allow you to publish benchmark results for their product. So there is
no way to know.

Ian Turner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE5rvyFfn9ub9ZE1xoRAsGDAJ47ArGoKnKEtG20ZrazosJA+/I+hQCgzucN
W0U6euaJtMQMQXmbnnoNS1s=
=Xi1I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I know there's been a certain amount of buzz over the
usefulness/methodology of the tests, but Great Bridge just published a set
of tests using "Major Proprietary #1", ...#2, etc. kind of terminology.

http://www.greatbridge.com/news/p_081420001.html

-emile

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Ian Turner wrote:

> > I am looking for a good head to head comparison of the latest
> > rdbms's and how they match up performance scalibilty out of the
> > box with POSTGRESQL.
>
> Alas, most commercial rdbms's (i.e., oracle, informix, MS SQL, etc.) do
> not allow you to publish benchmark results for their product. So there is
> no way to know.
>
> Ian Turner
> ------------ Output from gpg ------------
> gpg: Signature made Thu Aug 31 19:47:01 2000 CDT using DSA key ID D644D71A
> gpg: requesting key D644D71A from www.keyserver.net ...
> gpg: [fd 8]: read error: Connection reset by peer
> gpg: Total number processed: 0
> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>
>

Emile D Snyder wrote:
>
> I know there's been a certain amount of buzz over the
> usefulness/methodology of the tests, but Great Bridge just published a set
> of tests using "Major Proprietary #1", ...#2, etc. kind of terminology.

Of which #1 may or may not be Oracle, and #2 may or may not be MSSQL.
:-)

Chris <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
> Emile D Snyder wrote:
>>
>> I know there's been a certain amount of buzz over the
>> usefulness/methodology of the tests, but Great Bridge just published a set
>> of tests using "Major Proprietary #1", ...#2, etc. kind of terminology.

> Of which #1 may or may not be Oracle, and #2 may or may not be MSSQL.
> :-)

The page of followup details that GB posted a little later includes
version numbers of all the tested servers.  These provide, um, a
pretty broad hint about the identity of Proprietary #1 and Proprietary
#2...

            regards, tom lane