Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD6F9FB5A1
	for <pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:03:51 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 97533-01-10 for
	<pgsql-advocacy-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:03:42 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from smtp.janestcapital.com (www.janestcapital.com [66.155.124.107])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07AE09FB6C0
	for <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:01:56 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [172.25.129.161] [38.96.172.125] by janestcapital.com with
 ESMTP
	(SMTPD-9.10) id A8A302E8; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:02:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4676C893.9020901@janestcapital.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:01:55 -0400
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle
References: <c50dbb0b0706180855v4b781f13m6e54c50aa3ab1dee@mail.gmail.com>
	<36e682920706180910y519bc6a5h11e0ba56f45009ec@mail.gmail.com>
	<4676B7C7.6020801@kostyrka.org>
	<36e682920706181002i495f3fc3s2d55472e36a91b63@mail.gmail.com>
	<4676BE31.6040701@commandprompt.com> <op.tt4n3aldcigqcu@apollo13>
	<4676C19D.4040702@commandprompt.com>
In-Reply-To: <4676C19D.4040702@commandprompt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200706/190
X-Sequence-Number: 11239

(cut down the reply-tos)

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> PFC wrote:
>
>>
>>> 2. Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM have a "lot" to fear in the sense of a 
>>> database like PostgreSQL. We can compete in 90-95% of cases where 
>>> people would traditionally purchase a proprietary system for many, 
>>> many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars.
>>
>>
>>     Oracle also fears benchmarks made by people who don't know how to 
>> tune Oracle properly...
>
>
> Yes that is one argument that is made (and a valid one) but it is 
> assuredly not the only one that can be made, that would be legitimate.
>

Given how many bogus MySQL vr.s Postgresql benchmarks I've seen, where 
Postgres is running untuned "out of the box", it's a sufficient reasons, 
IMHO.

Brian