Nah, they were just pulling your leg, making the point that baseless
assertions mean nothing. In fact, SAPDB and Postgresql are probably both
reasonable fast, and both probably have corner cases where one is a clear
winner over the other, but neither is likely to just win every race.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Vernon Smith wrote:
> Good to learn PG, in fact, is faster than SAP DB. But how the figure 2.487 comes up? A single select statement or
somethingelse?
>
> --------- Original Message ---------
>
> DATE: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:00:30
> From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
> To: Mike Mascari <mascarm@mascari.com>, vwu98034@lycos.com
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org,Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc@mega-bucks.co.jp>
>
> >On Thursday 24 July 2003 04:42, Mike Mascari wrote:
> >> Vernon Smith wrote:
> >> > The unknown is only in North American, but not in Europe.
> >> > That is what I learnt more than a year ago. It has some
> >> > advantagess over PG from on-line information. It is
> >> > quicker than PG for one.
> >>
> >> No. PG is 2.5 times faster.
> >>
> >> See how easy it is for people to make unsubstantiated claims?
> >
> >Be fair Mike, it's actually 2.487 times faster
> >
> >Unsubstantiated claims should be implausibly accurate too ;-)
> >
> >--
> > Richard Huxton
> > Archonet Ltd
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> > joining column's datatypes do not match
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
> http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>