Re: PostgreSQL x Oracle
От | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL x Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030211114646.B20645@mail.libertyrms.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL x Oracle (Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 06:48:17PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote: > Unfortuantely, a lot of the older TPC specs have proven susceptible to > "hacks" where the data proves to be almost totally non-interdependent, > so that by throwing extra CPUs and extra disks at the benchmarks, you > can get very nearly linear scalability. Based on history, I'm > skeptical that the "hacks" for more recent benchmarks just haven't > been found yet... Sure. And isn't that what every database admin looks to do the moment performance starts to crawl? If everyone can use the same hacks, then you just find out who works the best witht he hacks. Do the TPC tests tell us anything about how the DBMS will work with application x? No. But they are a clear, well-understood standard with well-known deficiencies and advantages. The question is not whether a test reveals actual utility of the system for its intended use. The question is merely whether good performance in the set of tests is a predictor for good performance in other areas. TPC-B and TPC-C appear to be fairly consistent predictors of good OLTP systems. They don't give you any kind of realistic idea of how the system will actually perform, though. (In this respect, the TPC tests are no different from the LSAT/GRE/MCAT/&c. exams. Does the LSAT test things necessary for law school? Nobody knows, and the LSAC doesn't care. The test is merely a good predictor of high scores at the time of law school graduation.) A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: