World's No.1 SQL server!! PostgreSQL defeated Oracle, MS SQLserver, DB2, Sybase, Interbase....!!!!
A cross-posted promotional post claimed PostgreSQL had beaten Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, Sybase, Informix and others in "International Database Olympics" benchmarks, linking to the author's own pages. Respondents dismissed it as spam and bogus marketing: the results only named anonymous "Proprietary 1/2" systems (guessed to be Oracle 8.1.5 and MS SQL 7.0), and ignored transaction integrity, recovery time and distributed transactions. Advice given was to run your own tests reflecting real workloads. A side question about an Oracle auto-increment column was answered: use sequences (German "Sequenzen"), optionally via an insert trigger. No other resolution.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Hello SQL-database gurus: International Database Olympics: ------------------------ PostgreSQL defeated all major SQL servers like Oracle, MS SQL server, Interbase, MySQL, Sybase, DB2, Informix and others in all standard benchmarks. PostgreSQL consistently was ahead in all types of benchmarks with every other SQL server. Today PostgreSQL is declared No.1 SQL server in this world. SQL HOWTO (postgresql) is at - http://www.metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/PostgreSQL-HOWTO.html And read the benchmarks at - http://aldev.8m.com Mirror sites at http://aldev.webjump.com http://www.angelfire.com/nv/aldev http://www.geocities.com/alavoor/index.html http://aldev.virtualave.net http://aldev.50megs.com http://aldev.bizland.com http://members.theglobe.com/aldev/index.html http://members.spree.com/technology/aldev http://homepages.infoseek.com/~aldev1/index.html http://www3.bcity.com/aldev
alavoor@yahoo.com writes: > Hello SQL-database gurus: > > International Database Olympics: > ------------------------ > PostgreSQL defeated all major SQL servers like Oracle, MS SQL server, > Interbase, MySQL, Sybase, DB2, Informix > and others in all standard benchmarks. > PostgreSQL consistently was ahead in all types of benchmarks with every > other SQL server. > > Today PostgreSQL is declared No.1 SQL server in this world. I suppose Larry has to fork over all his money? Oh I see, the benchmark is bogus you say? Sorry lad, back to work we go... Thomas
Funny, the 'benchmarks' don't mention Oracle at all, just 'Proprietary 1' and 'Proprietary 2'; apparently they didn't run tests against Oracle but they're trying to extrapolate the results to include all major RDBMS vendors. I'll bet this same crap is in the Sybase and Informix newsgroups as well. Generate some results that prove PostgreSQL is better than Oracle. Then come back and blow your horn, if you can. -- David Fitzjarrell Oracle Certified DBA Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
BWAHHHHH-ha-ha-ha *CHOKE* *GASP* Heeeeeee-HA-HA-HA.... Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
In article <3A0C115E.4C4DE75D@yahoo.com>, alavoor@yahoo.com wrote: > Hello SQL-database gurus: > > International Database Olympics: > ------------------------ > PostgreSQL defeated all major SQL servers like Oracle, MS SQL server, > Interbase, MySQL, Sybase, DB2, Informix > and others in all standard benchmarks. > PostgreSQL consistently was ahead in all types of benchmarks with every > other SQL server. > > Today PostgreSQL is declared No.1 SQL server in this world. I think that for selecting a new database. It Must be analized first "the cost of change", this cost is particular for each company and after to think in the change. Regards. Ruben Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
What a pity nobody uses it :) All that hard work and money spend on advertisement. Maybe sell it to the US government as a voting system, maybe it can count faster. -DtreG
> International Database Olympics: > ------------------------ Hope they were hosted in Sydney:)
what were the benchmarks for transaction failure and recovery time? how about distributed transactions? what's that? postgesql doesn't have transactional integrity? no distributed transaction support? oh. oh well. i wonder who came up with the benchmarks. i need a real database engine. <alavoor@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3A0C115E.4C4DE75D@yahoo.com... > Hello SQL-database gurus: > > International Database Olympics: > ------------------------ > PostgreSQL defeated all major SQL servers like Oracle, MS SQL server, > Interbase, MySQL, Sybase, DB2, Informix > and others in all standard benchmarks. > PostgreSQL consistently was ahead in all types of benchmarks with every > other SQL server. > > Today PostgreSQL is declared No.1 SQL server in this world. > > SQL HOWTO (postgresql) is at - > http://www.metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/PostgreSQL-HOWTO.html > > And read the benchmarks at - > http://aldev.8m.com > Mirror sites at > http://aldev.webjump.com > http://www.angelfire.com/nv/aldev > http://www.geocities.com/alavoor/index.html > http://aldev.virtualave.net > http://aldev.50megs.com > http://aldev.bizland.com > http://members.theglobe.com/aldev/index.html > > http://members.spree.com/technology/aldev > http://homepages.infoseek.com/~aldev1/index.html > http://www3.bcity.com/aldev > >
I think you should be fair here. The pages quoted specifically say that they are not allowed to reveal the names of Proprietary 1 and 2 due to vendor restrictions, not because they don't want to. They do however say Prop 1 version no was 8.1.5 and Prop 2 Version 7.0. Moreover Prop 2 only runs on NT. No prizes for spotting that Prop 2 is MS SQL Server, and 8.1.5 sounds very like Oracle. Of course they could be being "economical with the truth" and I have yet to see any database vendor unable to come up with a benchmark that shows it top! I always advise people to devise their own tests simulating as near as possible their own needs. I for one was recently very impressed with MySQL - if you don't need transactions etc. and aren't too concerned with safety, it's certainly quick! But how many customers are not worried about data integrity and uptimes? In fact I'm currently trying to test Oracle myself for a German client, and have hit a brick wall. Does Oracle have an AutoIncrement field (i.e an automatically increasing counter)? My German is normally OK but all my docs are in German and I can't guess what the German should be for this! Can anyone help please??? Thanks, Jonathan "David Fitzjarrell" <oratune@aol.com> wrote in message news:8uh7ds$5r1$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > Funny, the 'benchmarks' don't mention Oracle at all, just 'Proprietary > 1' and 'Proprietary 2'; apparently they didn't run tests against Oracle > but they're trying to extrapolate the results to include all major > RDBMS vendors. I'll bet this same crap is in the Sybase and Informix > newsgroups as well. > > Generate some results that prove PostgreSQL is better than Oracle. > Then come back and blow your horn, if you can. > > -- > David Fitzjarrell > Oracle Certified DBA > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.
Cliff Burton wrote: > > > International Database Olympics: > > ------------------------ > > Hope they were hosted in Sydney:) Nope... They must have been hosted in Floriduh!
Apart from what BertJan replied - sequezen (tzeekwentzen) in German. Jonathan Willcock wrote: > I think you should be fair here. The pages quoted specifically say that > they are not allowed to reveal the names of Proprietary 1 and 2 due > to vendor restrictions, not because they don't want to. They do however > say Prop 1 version no was 8.1.5 and Prop 2 Version 7.0. Moreover > Prop 2 only runs on NT. > > No prizes for spotting that Prop 2 is MS SQL Server, and 8.1.5 sounds > very like Oracle. > > Of course they could be being "economical with the truth" and I have yet to > see any database vendor unable to come up with a benchmark that shows > it top! I always advise people to devise their own tests simulating as near > as possible their own needs. I for one was recently very impressed with > MySQL - if you don't need transactions etc. and aren't too concerned with > safety, it's certainly quick! But how many customers are not worried about > data integrity and uptimes? > > In fact I'm currently trying to test Oracle myself for a German client, and > have > hit a brick wall. Does Oracle have an AutoIncrement field (i.e an > automatically increasing counter)? My German is normally OK but all my docs > are in German and I can't guess what the German should be for this! Can > anyone help please??? > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > "David Fitzjarrell" <oratune@aol.com> wrote in message > news:8uh7ds$5r1$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > > > > Funny, the 'benchmarks' don't mention Oracle at all, just 'Proprietary > > 1' and 'Proprietary 2'; apparently they didn't run tests against Oracle > > but they're trying to extrapolate the results to include all major > > RDBMS vendors. I'll bet this same crap is in the Sybase and Informix > > newsgroups as well. > > > > Generate some results that prove PostgreSQL is better than Oracle. > > Then come back and blow your horn, if you can. > > > > -- > > David Fitzjarrell > > Oracle Certified DBA > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. -- Gtrz, Frank van Bortel
Oracle uses "sequences" for auto-numbering. You define a sequence just like you define a trigger or function. Then you can select the next number from the sequence whenever you need it, and Oracle keeps track. You can, of course, write an insert trigger that automatically selects and inserts the next sequence for all new rows. Troy Wolf troy@troywolf-nospam-.com "Jonathan Willcock" <Jonathan@FESoftware.com> wrote in message news:8upftq$1o78$1@euler.space.net... > I think you should be fair here. The pages quoted specifically say that > they are not allowed to reveal the names of Proprietary 1 and 2 due > to vendor restrictions, not because they don't want to. They do however > say Prop 1 version no was 8.1.5 and Prop 2 Version 7.0. Moreover > Prop 2 only runs on NT. > > No prizes for spotting that Prop 2 is MS SQL Server, and 8.1.5 sounds > very like Oracle. > > Of course they could be being "economical with the truth" and I have yet to > see any database vendor unable to come up with a benchmark that shows > it top! I always advise people to devise their own tests simulating as near > as possible their own needs. I for one was recently very impressed with > MySQL - if you don't need transactions etc. and aren't too concerned with > safety, it's certainly quick! But how many customers are not worried about > data integrity and uptimes? > > In fact I'm currently trying to test Oracle myself for a German client, and > have > hit a brick wall. Does Oracle have an AutoIncrement field (i.e an > automatically increasing counter)? My German is normally OK but all my docs > are in German and I can't guess what the German should be for this! Can > anyone help please??? > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > > "David Fitzjarrell" <oratune@aol.com> wrote in message > news:8uh7ds$5r1$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > > > > Funny, the 'benchmarks' don't mention Oracle at all, just 'Proprietary > > 1' and 'Proprietary 2'; apparently they didn't run tests against Oracle > > but they're trying to extrapolate the results to include all major > > RDBMS vendors. I'll bet this same crap is in the Sybase and Informix > > newsgroups as well. > > > > Generate some results that prove PostgreSQL is better than Oracle. > > Then come back and blow your horn, if you can. > > > > -- > > David Fitzjarrell > > Oracle Certified DBA > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > >
D'ya reckon that Gore and Bush realise that, after all the kerfluffle they have raised, whichever finally sits in the Oval Office will forever be nicknamed 'Florrie'? Sigh ... politics is ugly, Victoria. "8-) Doug McAllister wrote: > > Cliff Burton wrote: > > > > > International Database Olympics: > > > ------------------------ > > > > Hope they were hosted in Sydney:) > > Nope... > > They must have been hosted in Floriduh!