Thread: RE: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql c omparison
RE: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql c omparison
From
"Ansley, Michael"
Date:
Save yourself (left hand on forehead, right hand on back of head, elbows up) Thomas, save yourself ;-) >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Lockhart [mailto:lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 3:47 PM >> To: Tom Lane >> Cc: Bruce Momjian; luuk@wxs.nl; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org >> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: >> PostgreSQL vs Mysql >> comparison >> >> >> > I can't get excited about changing this from the standpoint of >> > functionality, because AFAICS there is no added functionality. >> > But if we're looking bad on a recognized benchmark maybe we >> > should do something about it. >> >> We are looking bad on a benchmark designed to show MySQL in the best >> possible light, and to show other DBs at their worst. The maintainers >> of that benchmark have no interest in changing that emphasis (e.g. we >> are still reported as not supporting HAVING, even though we have >> demonstrated to them that we do; this is the same pattern we >> have seen >> earlier). >> >> The last time I looked at it, there were ~30% factual errors in the >> reported results for Postgres; no telling what errors are there for >> other products. imho it is a waste of time to address a bogus >> benchmark, unless someone wants to take it up as a hobby. I'm a bit >> busy right now ;) >> >> - Thomas >> >> -- >> Thomas Lockhart >> lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu >> South Pasadena, California >> >> ************ >>