I am wary of user reports that claim product X was lousy for them, then they moved to product Y and everything was awesome. Sometimes this means that product X was lousy -- in general or for their use case. Other times it means the team using product X did a lousy job deploying it. It is hard for the reader to figure this out. It can also be hard for some authors to figure this out thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect so lousy reports will continue to be published. These reports are not my favorite form of marketing and some of the bad ones linger for years. We deserve better especially in the open-source database market where remarkable progress is being made.
I have written before on benchmarketing. Other posts that mention it are here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why is RocksDB spending so much time handling page faults?
This week I was running benchmarks to understand how fast RocksDB could do IO, and then compared that to fio to understand the CPU overhead ...
-
I need stable performance from the servers I use for benchmarks. I also need servers that don't run too hot because too-hot servers caus...
-
This provides additional results for Postgres versions 11 through 16 vs Sysbench on a medium server. My previous post is here . The goal is ... -
I often use HWE kernels with Ubuntu and currently use Ubuntu 22.04. Until recently that meant I ran Linux 6.2 but after a recent update I am...
No comments:
Post a Comment