Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F779FB342 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:41:09 -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 28099-02 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:40:56 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from main2.mycybernet.net (main2.mycybernet.net [209.222.63.140]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C679FB3D6 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:41:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net ([209.222.54.227] helo=phlogiston.dydns.org) by main2.mycybernet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hw1NQ-0000Ih-4Z for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:41:04 -0400 Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CDC003F9E; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:40:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:40:58 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: control of benchmarks (was: Thousands of tables) Message-ID: <20070606194058.GE11545@phlogiston.dyndns.org> References: <877iqjmro5.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <46647427.4030103@g2switchworks.com> <466593E5.1010904@g2switchworks.com> <87sl96z0wf.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <10525.1181080765@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4666DF99.3010809@emolecules.com> <36e682920706061101i5d3344c2idc518c6190b0af77@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <36e682920706061101i5d3344c2idc518c6190b0af77@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/105 X-Sequence-Number: 25138 On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 02:01:59PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > They did this for the same reason as everyone else. They don't want > non-experts tuning the database incorrectly, writing a benchmark paper > about it, and making the software look bad. I agree that Oracle is a fine system, and I have my doubts about the likelihood Oracle will fall over under fairly heavy loads. But I think the above is giving Oracle Corp a little too much credit. Corporations exist to make money, and the reason they prohibit doing anything with their software and then publishing it without their approval is because they want to control all the public perception of their software, whether deserved or not. Every user of any large software system (Oracle or otherwise) has their favourite horror story about the grotty corners of that software; commercially-licensed people just aren't allowed to prove it in public. It's not only the clueless Oracle is protecting themselves against; it's also the smart, accurate, but expensive corner-case testers. I get to complain that PostgreSQL is mostly fast but has terrible outlier performance problems. I can think of another system that I've used that certainly had a similar issue, but I couldn't show you the data to prove it. Everyone who used it knew about it, though. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are against all taxes for raising money to pay it off. --Alexander Hamilton