Hello,
I have seen some performance testing indicates that apparently the PostgreSQL 8 is faster in writing data while seems like Oracle 10g is better in reading data from database, can any one tell me why? Or is there anyone done performance benchmark on them before?
This is urgent.
Thanks.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling for free!
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

lai yoke hman <lllhman@hotmail.com> writes:
> I have seen some performance testing indicates that apparently the PostgreSQL 8 is faster in writing data while seems like Oracle 10g is better in reading data from database, can any one tell me why? Or is there anyone done performance benchmark on them before?

You won't find anything particularly definitive on this, because Oracle
forbids publishing benchmarks of their software.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Tom Lane wrote:
> Oracle forbids publishing benchmarks of their software.

Does anyone have a clue why Oracle forbids publication of benchmarks? Are
they embarrassed by the results?

Doesn't such a ban violate free speech rights in the U.S.? How can a company
get away with forbidding the publication of facts?

My personal opinion is that this makes Oracle a Bad Guy and a Minion of Evil.

--
Lew

Lew wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oracle forbids publishing benchmarks of their software.
>
> Does anyone have a clue why Oracle forbids publication of benchmarks?
> Are they embarrassed by the results?
>
> Doesn't such a ban violate free speech rights in the U.S.? How can a
> company get away with forbidding the publication of facts?
>
> My personal opinion is that this makes Oracle a Bad Guy and a Minion of
> Evil.
>

> "publication of facts"

I think you exactly described why they don't allow it. Its so easy to
do benchmarks wrong, with such drastically differing hardware, software,
etc, how can you publish a "factual benchmark"?

Oracle (and microsoft) are protecting themselves from messed up
benchmarks, they are not afraid of competition (well, Oracle isnt).

-Andy

andy wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Oracle forbids publishing benchmarks of their software.
>>
>> Does anyone have a clue why Oracle forbids publication of benchmarks?
>> Are they embarrassed by the results?
>>
>> Doesn't such a ban violate free speech rights in the U.S.? How can a
>> company get away with forbidding the publication of facts?
>>
>> My personal opinion is that this makes Oracle a Bad Guy and a Minion
>> of Evil.
>>
>
> > "publication of facts"
>
> I think you exactly described why they don't allow it. Its so easy to
> do benchmarks wrong, with such drastically differing hardware, software,
> etc, how can you publish a "factual benchmark"?
>
> Oracle (and microsoft) are protecting themselves from messed up
> benchmarks, they are not afraid of competition (well, Oracle isnt).

While the validity of a particular benchmark may be questioned, the fact of
its results is still a fact.

Again, the issue isn't whether the facts are meaningful, but how they can get
away with suppressing them.

--
Lew