X-Original-To: pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518B73A5367
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:20:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 87212-07
	for <pgsql-benchmarks-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:20:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (floppy.pyrenet.fr [194.250.190.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A359B3A535E
	for <pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org>;
	Sun,  9 Jan 2005 03:20:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id 15E05313D2; Sun,  9 Jan 2005 04:20:24 +0100 (MET)
From: Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.benchmarks
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Oracle vs. Microsoft
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 03:20:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <Xns95D8C662EB006rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
References: <Xns95D5894565E82rr8xca@200.46.204.72>
	<8533.1105221483@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
User-Agent: Xnews/06.08.25
X-Face: 
 +kXh]<cm0}l<Fvzd*?E]I7=Ug!X`>8'{:R`HzXla-aT~$s8a+C)k/B%RBr$_3sP`[kA}cl7#mD^9Z:oM`HpoC_kUEH['RZ*Ob%pz\ww^q&x)~zc`.xd]VQ4WN/3t2nS-<I>BvI%LF\B4:\9$EI:/|<)`?8I_;
	xzG@SOYFir/gk_eB4"Rl43-h%)8O0sR$b&Mp3XHR(0j=
X-Face-Author: Randolf Richardson (composed with Adobe Photoshop)
To: pgsql-benchmarks@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200501/5
X-Sequence-Number: 27

"tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane)" wrote in pgsql.benchmarks:

> Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> writes:
> 
>> I'm looking for recent performance statistics on PostgreSQL vs. Oracle 
>> vs. Microsoft SQL Server.
> 
> Oracle prohibits their licensees from publishing independent benchmarks,
> and I think the same is true for SQL Server.  So you won't find anything
> unbiased.

    	I know for a fact that my client will see this as an admission of 
weakness on the part of those two vendors (I assume you mean "Microsoft SQL 
Server" when you use the generic term "SQL Server," despite the fact that 
PostgreSQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc., are all SQL Servers as well).

    	Do you happen to have links to their license agreements?  I'd like to 
see this for myself, because if it is then I'm going to cry a song similar to 
"bloody murder" for many of my friends and colleagues once verified.

    	Thanks, by the way.  This will pretty much be the needed "nail in the 
coffin" as far as my client is concerned -- if those two organizations are 
that restrictive in their license agreements, then my client will be very 
concerned that they won't be able to trust the vendor in other was as well.