Message-ID: <46927D36.4060309@hagander.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:23:50 +0200
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5pre (Windows/20070706)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark
References: <46925AD9.9020208@sun.com> <20070709165219.GC20917@uio.no>
	<46926A12.1090302@commandprompt.com>
In-Reply-To: <46926A12.1090302@commandprompt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:57:13AM -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
>>> I think this result will be useful for performance discussions of
>>> postgresql against other databases.
>>>
>>> http://www.spec.org/jAppServer2004/results/res2007q3/
>>
>> Am I right if this is for a T2000 (Niagara) database server? It sure is
>> interesting, but I can't help thinking it's not a very common
>> configuration...
> 
> I have yet to see a benchmark that was valid on a common configuration.
> Common configurations don't make people in suits go... "oooohhhh sexy!".
> It is also the reason that those in the know typically ignore all
> benchmarks and do their own testing.

This kind of benchmarks are primarily a marketing thing. And as such,
it's a very good one to have, because there are certainly a large
amounts of PHBs who will just dispose a solution that's not "proven" (we
all know what that means, but they don't) without even looking at the
details.