On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:15 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:05:17PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This article:
> >
> > http://www.vnunet.com/computing/news/2194087/database-ticket
> >
> > and the associated press release:
> >
> > http://www.enterprisedb.com/news_events/press_releases/07_11_07.do
> >
> > Caused quite the storm on IRC. In response to the following prompt:
> >
> > (07:52:16 PM) davidfetter: so, linuxpoet, since you've urged me so many
> > times in private, i'm urging you in semi-public, to start that thread :)
> >
> > I post...
> >
> > I would kindly ask EDB to consider how this looks overall. Everyone
> > is used to marketing speak but this is pretty much a blatant slap in
> > the face about the very product that is the core of what you and all
> > your venture capitalists bet the farm on.
>
> If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't be mentioning it here,
> but it appears to be marketing policy at EnterpriseDB, and a
> long-standing one. EnterpriseDB has done a lot for the community, and
> continues to, but this kind of thing really blights the discourse.
Thank you for your comments; your feedback is welcome. I will ensure the
message is received clearly in the EnterpriseDB marketing department.
EnterpriseDB does provide PostgreSQL support to many of its customers,
as well as supporting the EnterpriseDB Advanced Server. EnterpriseDB
Advanced Server is designed specifically to provide an Oracle
alternative. There is no marketing policy that I am aware of to talk
down the capabilities of PostgreSQL, which would be self-defeating as
you observe. EnterpriseDB Adv Server *does* have additional capabilities
over PostgreSQL - it isn't the only value-added distribution of
PostgreSQL, of which there are at least 5 others claiming this also,
each with different specialisms and/or tuning features.
> EnterpriseDB is 200% faster than an untuned PostgreSQL
This sentence is true, even if it is a generalisation: the specific
workload tested was an OLTP workload. EnterpriseDB ships with a feature
called DynaTune that makes this so. My observation is that it does a
good job.
> is misleading and dishonest, as is
> preventing even the community from doing benchmarks. Please stop.
My understanding is that the product requires a licence key to operate
and that this is for revenue protection, not to explicitly prevent
benchmarks. My understanding is that Sales is happy to let any serious
buyer test the performance of the product.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com