I wasn't saying the thing is useless. Just that they shouldn't compare it to a database and claim it's 156 times faster than a "competitor", a "leading database" which will remain anonymous. That's not only technically incorrect, but it's intellectually dishonest and grossly unfair.
I'm not commenting on the technical merits of the software, which is pretty good actually. I don't think it's fair however for Stonebraker to say that "relational databases are one to two orders of magnitude too slow," and then proceed to compare apples and oranges to make himself look good.
Forgive my ignorance, but last time I checked "database" implied "persistence" of some sort. It's great that it can **process** 140,000 messages per second, but how many can it **store**?! Show me something that can store 140,000 items per second and I'll be duly impressed. Until then, let's compare apples with apples and keep everybody honest.
Slashdot Mirror
That article was written in January 2001. Does anybody else feel we live in a different world now?! Hello?!
I wasn't saying the thing is useless. Just that they shouldn't compare it to a database and claim it's 156 times faster than a "competitor", a "leading database" which will remain anonymous. That's not only technically incorrect, but it's intellectually dishonest and grossly unfair. I'm not commenting on the technical merits of the software, which is pretty good actually. I don't think it's fair however for Stonebraker to say that "relational databases are one to two orders of magnitude too slow," and then proceed to compare apples and oranges to make himself look good.
Forgive my ignorance, but last time I checked "database" implied "persistence" of some sort. It's great that it can **process** 140,000 messages per second, but how many can it **store**?! Show me something that can store 140,000 items per second and I'll be duly impressed. Until then, let's compare apples with apples and keep everybody honest.