Thanks to Brad, Ian, and Aaron for blogging about this.
The one thing that caught my attention of course is the statement
that REAL SQL Sever was
2x faster than PostgreSQL and 4x faster than MySQL across a suite of tests.
I wonder who could possibly say this and keep a straight face unless
it was after those beer runs. ;-) These figures are simply
impossible which makes me curious about what exactly that "suite of
tests" did.
We all know the performance gap between PostgreSQL and MySQL can't
possibly be 200% so this impossibility can be extrapolated to the
performance gap with the REAL SQL Server. At the best the
measurement was just about the gap between RB's plugins. From an RB
centric point of view, this would still make sense though.
But then from an RB centric point of view, you ought to use the best
way to connect to PostgreSQL if there were an alternative to the RB
plugin <cough> pgSQL4RB <cough>.
And then I'm sure they didn't use the features of PostgreSQL either
for their tests. It wouldn't surprise me if I could run queries that
would return the same results as in the "test suite" and make
PostgreSQL spank the REAL SQL Server. But I wouldn't bet any money
on it either. ;-)
This is not to start another flame war on who has the biggest peni...
err, database. It's just that the figures given are simply
impossible. That's basically all I wanted to say.
The real figures should be so close to one another that different
"test suites" would come up with different performance rankings,
depending on who crafted said "test suites." The end results would
always be quite tight. 200 or 400% difference is ludicrous.
Cheers,
Marc
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
