Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle
От | Jonah H. Harris |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 36e682920812141851s2c80f0dbie4b82cb7cf160e85@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle (justin <justin@emproshunts.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle
Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:38 PM, justin <justin@emproshunts.com> wrote: > Here is the current TPC-E [H, C] top 10 > where is oracle??? Where you should be looking is at the price/performance benchmarks, because that's where Postgres plays. Last time I checked Postgres on a TPC-C, albeit being 100% free, was anywhere from $4.00 to $6.00 per transaction depending on the hardware. Compare that to Oracle's $0.68 or SQL Server's $0.84. Yeah, I expect the normal it's just an industry benchmark, it's not fair, it's not representative of real workloads or real performance response. Or, just for the fun of it, run Postgres on the 100GB TPC-H and let me know what you get for price/performance... then compare that to SQL Server's result from 2006. I do want to caution everyone though. The OSDL-DBT kits are *not* spec-compliant and have several flaws which make the results fairly untrustworthy for comparison purposes. The best TPC-C kit for Postgres I've seen is EnterpriseDB's version of the DBT-2. While it's still not spec-compliant, it fixes several major bugs and includes a more optimized schema. If you want a copy, you could petition them to release their modifications to it. -- Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA myYearbook.com
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: