Re: Benchmark

> I have never used Oracle myself, nor have I read its license
agreement,
> but what if you didn't name Oracle directly? ie:
>
> TPS Database
> -------------------------------
> 112 MySQL
> 120 PgSQL
> 90 Sybase
> 95 "Other database that *may* start with a letter after N"
> 50 "Other database that *may* start with a letter after L"
>
> As far as I know there are only a couple databases that don't allow
you
> to post benchmarks, but if they remain "unnamed" can legal action be
> taken?
>
> Just like all those commercials on TV where they advertise: "Cleans
10x
> better then the other leading brand".

Instead of measuring transactions/second, let's put everything in terms
of transactions/dollar. This will make it quite easy to determine which
database is which from the results. Since postgresql is free and would
invalidate our test on mathematical terms, we will sub in the $19.99
price of a T-Shirt (http://www.sourcewear.com/) for the price of the
database.

TP$ Database
-------------------------------
25 A
.5 B
.01 C
.001 D
.00001 E

Merlin

Oops! merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com ("Merlin Moncure") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Instead of measuring transactions/second, let's put everything in terms
> of transactions/dollar. This will make it quite easy to determine which
> database is which from the results. Since postgresql is free and would
> invalidate our test on mathematical terms, we will sub in the $19.99
> price of a T-Shirt (http://www.sourcewear.com/) for the price of the
> database.
>
> TP$ Database
> -------------------------------
> 25 A
> .5 B
> .01 C
> .001 D
> .00001 E

Ah, but that's a completely wrong evaluation.

The fact that PostgreSQL is available without licensing charges does
_not_ make a transactions/dollar ratio break down.

After all, the cost of a computer system to run the transactions is
likely to be comprised of some combination of software licenses and
hardware costs. Even if the software is free, the hardware isn't.

If you're doing a high end evaluation, you probably have a million
dollars worth of computer hardware.

If you're running PostgreSQL, that may mean you can afford to throw
some extra RAM on the box, but you still need the million dollar
server in order to get hefty TPS counts...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"Let's face it -- ASCII text is a far richer medium than most of us
deserve." -- Scott McNealy

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:

> After all, the cost of a computer system to run the transactions is
> likely to be comprised of some combination of software licenses and
> hardware costs. Even if the software is free, the hardware isn't.

And labour costs.

--
greg

Dear,

We are using PostgreSQL for 4 Years now, one can say it is a blessing to
maintain. Our previous database was number one (;-), it was much harder to
maintain so labor is a pro for PostgreSQL ...

Kind Regards

Patrick Meylemans

IT Manager
WTCM-CRIF
Celestijnenlaan 300C
3001 Helerlee

At 11:34 13/02/2005 -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
>Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
>
> > After all, the cost of a computer system to run the transactions is
> > likely to be comprised of some combination of software licenses and
> > hardware costs. Even if the software is free, the hardware isn't.
>
>And labour costs.
>
>--
>greg
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org

In article <87mzu85sgh(dot)fsf(at)stark(dot)xeocode(dot)com>,
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:

> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
>> After all, the cost of a computer system to run the transactions is
>> likely to be comprised of some combination of software licenses and
>> hardware costs. Even if the software is free, the hardware isn't.

> And labour costs.

Except that working with PostgreSQL is fun, not labour :-)