Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:39:47 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL TPC-H test result?
Message-ID: <20080909123947.GA59092@commandprompt.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>,
	pgsql-general@postgresql.org
References: <BLU139-DS5AB90A6E11E3F439F0006CD540@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BLU139-DS5AB90A6E11E3F439F0006CD540@phx.gbl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 07:59:49PM +0800, Amber wrote:

> I read something from
> http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb/SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/index.html

Given that the point of that "study" is to prove something about
performance, one should be leery of any claims based on an "out of the
box" comparison.  Particularly since the "box" their own product comes
out of is "compiled from CVS checkout".  Their argument seems to be
that people can learn how to drive CVS and to compile software under
active development, but can't read the manual that comes with Postgres
(and a release of Postgres well over a year old, at that).  

I didn't get any further in reading the claims, because it's obviously
nothing more than a marketing effort using the principle that deriding
everyone else will make them look better.  Whether they have a good
product is another question entirely.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/