Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle
От | justin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4945CC64.8080605@emproshunts.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres vr.s Oracle
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Jonah H. Harris wrote: > 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. Where are you getting the $4 and $6 per transaction for PostgreSql. i just search through this list http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms it does not contain PostgreSql entry. all of the less than $1.00 per transaction are last the few years. Oracle only just in the last year dropped to below $1.00 it mixed bag from $3 to $52 (back on 2001) > 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. > First Step in testing and comparing is agree on a Standard that everyone can agree to. Second step test the system without cheating which numerous software including Oracle, MS, and IBM have. > 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. > >
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: