Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638929FB783 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:05:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74117-05 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:04:56 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.178]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469699FB654 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:04:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k40so2771773wah for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:04:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Pf2L9w++EwEiAuV8iSujrtdqfNmPPYaX3hXoJAc4RAhUGf54Gb5dgs/MJ1ff7C3Ew3Ftefywn997R8vO7M5foeEifmXL9mfZfeqUFo0yvJARqjOyRCguH4tGDDsnxzoNbmfp++sKUEIJR9lzIU7bB/nW0qdWT5q+7hm3IgE+X9c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=mV145IS5m7/eTJWZuy0E40M36lReeztrq3+hE1Nhl+7GX9PMRex5G15ws9pTFDJexQMj4y16tuzmqD92TRPwtFe5FmRUVgPZYZLoAfJQo9muCkRJ5p75mOfpZ4aEuKi705AbbnA9GhiTOqeve5in460eMd72BVjbWiCCuc4lhR0= Received: by 10.115.49.16 with SMTP id b16mr6879348wak.1182225895214; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.102? ( [67.164.252.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q20sm13819014pog.2007.06.18.21.04.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4677560E.902@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:05:34 -0600 From: John Meyer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070418) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Postgres VS Oracle References: <36e682920706180910y519bc6a5h11e0ba56f45009ec@mail.gmail.com> <4676B7C7.6020801@kostyrka.org> <36e682920706181002i495f3fc3s2d55472e36a91b63@mail.gmail.com> <4676BE31.6040701@commandprompt.com> <4677472F.9020806@gmail.com> <36e682920706182041v6c3c2989ya76875168c23f41c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <36e682920706182041v6c3c2989ya76875168c23f41c@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/204 X-Sequence-Number: 11253 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > On 6/18/07, John Meyer wrote: >> Then Oracle fears its users, which explains the "no-benchmark" policy, >> which I cannot see any PR honk being able to spin that in any way that >> doesn't make Oracle look like it's hiding its head in the sand. > > The humor I see in constant closed-minded presumptions is slowly fading. > This isn't even a straight out slam at Oracle. My degree comes in mass communications, and I cannot understand how anybody could shake the perception that Oracle is afraid of open, independent investigations of its programs. Let's take this at the most beneficial angle that we can, and that is that Oracle has seen too many people run their programs straight into the ground with some rather lousy benchmarking. If that's the case, then the solution is not to bar each and every bench mark out there, it is to publish the methodologies to properly tune an Oracle installation. It is not to attempt to strangle conversation. -- The NCP Revue -- http://www.ncprevue.com/blog