Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:42:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: Amber <guxiaobo1982@hotmail.com>
cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>, J.K.Shah@Sun.COM
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL TPC-H test result?
In-Reply-To: <BLU139-DS5AB90A6E11E3F439F0006CD540@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0809091723090.29002@westnet.com>
References: <BLU139-DS5AB90A6E11E3F439F0006CD540@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Amber wrote:

> I read something from 
> http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb/SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/index.html 
> saying that PostgreSQL can't give the correct result of the some TPC-H 
> queries

Jignesh Shah at Sun ran into that same problem.  It's mentioned briefly in 
his presentation at 
http://blogs.sun.com/jkshah/entry/postgresql_east_2008_talk_postgresql on 
pages 26 and 27.  5 of the 22 reference TCP-H queries (4, 5, 6, 10, 14) 
returned zero rows immediately for his tests.  Looks like the MonetDB crew 
is saying it does that on queries 4,5,6,10,12,14,15 and that 20 takes too 
long to run to generate a result.  Maybe 12/15/20 were fixed by changes in 
8.3, or perhaps there were subtle errors there that Jignesh didn't 
catch--it's not like he did a formal submission run, was just kicking the 
tires.  I suspect the difference on 20 was that his hardware and tuning 
was much better, so it probably did execute fast enough.

While some of the MonetDB bashing in this thread was unwarranted, it is 
quite inappropriate that they published performance results here.  Would 
be nice if someone in the community were to grab ahold of the TPC-H 
problems and try to shake them out.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD