Thread

1. POSTGRESQL vs. ORACLE 8i &Sybase & Interbase etc

   Eric Webber <streethockey@ureach.com> — 2000-08-31T17:02:32Z

   I am looking for a good head to head comparison of the latest
   rdbms's and how they match up performance scalibilty out of the 
   box with POSTGRESQL.
   
   Thanks !!!
   
   streethockey@ureach.com
   
   ________________________________________________
   Get your own "800" number - Free
   Free voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
   http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag
   
   

2. Re: POSTGRESQL vs. ORACLE 8i &Sybase & Interbase etc

   Ian Turner <vectro@pipeline.com> — 2000-09-01T00:47:00Z

   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
   Hash: SHA1
   
   > I am looking for a good head to head comparison of the latest
   > rdbms's and how they match up performance scalibilty out of the 
   > box with POSTGRESQL.
   
   Alas, most commercial rdbms's (i.e., oracle, informix, MS SQL, etc.) do
   not allow you to publish benchmark results for their product. So there is
   no way to know.
   
   Ian Turner
   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
   Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
   Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
   
   iD8DBQE5rvyFfn9ub9ZE1xoRAsGDAJ47ArGoKnKEtG20ZrazosJA+/I+hQCgzucN
   W0U6euaJtMQMQXmbnnoNS1s=
   =Xi1I
   -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
   
   
   

3. Re: POSTGRESQL vs. ORACLE 8i &Sybase & Interbase etc

   Emile D Snyder <emile@cosource.com> — 2000-09-01T01:14:54Z

   I know there's been a certain amount of buzz over the
   usefulness/methodology of the tests, but Great Bridge just published a set
   of tests using "Major Proprietary #1", ...#2, etc. kind of terminology.
   
   http://www.greatbridge.com/news/p_081420001.html
   
   -emile
   
   On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Ian Turner wrote:
   
   > > I am looking for a good head to head comparison of the latest
   > > rdbms's and how they match up performance scalibilty out of the
   > > box with POSTGRESQL.
   > 
   > Alas, most commercial rdbms's (i.e., oracle, informix, MS SQL, etc.) do
   > not allow you to publish benchmark results for their product. So there is
   > no way to know.
   > 
   > Ian Turner
   > ------------ Output from gpg ------------
   > gpg: Signature made Thu Aug 31 19:47:01 2000 CDT using DSA key ID D644D71A
   > gpg: requesting key D644D71A from www.keyserver.net ...
   > gpg: [fd 8]: read error: Connection reset by peer
   > gpg: Total number processed: 0
   > gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
   > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
   > 
   > 
   
   
   

4. Re: POSTGRESQL vs. ORACLE 8i &Sybase & Interbase etc

   Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> — 2000-09-01T02:38:12Z

   Emile D Snyder wrote:
   > 
   > I know there's been a certain amount of buzz over the
   > usefulness/methodology of the tests, but Great Bridge just published a set
   > of tests using "Major Proprietary #1", ...#2, etc. kind of terminology.
   
   Of which #1 may or may not be Oracle, and #2 may or may not be MSSQL.
   :-)
   
   

5. Re: POSTGRESQL vs. ORACLE 8i &Sybase & Interbase etc

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2000-09-01T03:45:54Z

   Chris <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> writes:
   > Emile D Snyder wrote:
   >> 
   >> I know there's been a certain amount of buzz over the
   >> usefulness/methodology of the tests, but Great Bridge just published a set
   >> of tests using "Major Proprietary #1", ...#2, etc. kind of terminology.
   
   > Of which #1 may or may not be Oracle, and #2 may or may not be MSSQL.
   > :-)
   
   The page of followup details that GB posted a little later includes
   version numbers of all the tested servers.  These provide, um, a
   pretty broad hint about the identity of Proprietary #1 and Proprietary
   #2...
   
   			regards, tom lane