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)
RocksDB on a big server: LRU vs hyperclock, v2
This post show that RocksDB has gotten much faster over time for the read-heavy benchmarks that I use. I recently shared results from a lar...
-
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 am trying out a dedicated server from Hetzner for my performance work. I am trying the ax162-s that has 48 cores (96 vCPU), 128G of RAM a...
-
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