Be careful with that statement, Oracle’s license disallows users of the database from making benchmarks or any kind of performance comparisons (another reason to move to PGSQL)
EDIT: Source that refers to the ToS: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12116865
Now, I'm not going to discount Oracle entirely. From what I've learned from some truly hardcore DBAs, there are certain workloads and scenarios where Oracle is still unbeatable.[ß] But outside those special cases, postgres is the rational, correct choice.
ß: For example, if you have insane performance requirements on a single system, I have been explained that oracle can be used with their own "fs" layer, which in turn runs directly on top of block device layer. Essentially, a bare-bones file system designed for nothing but their own DB usage.
For example, APFS vs. HFS+ (filesystems are a kind of hierarchical database, so it's not that big a stretch). Multiple secondary sources, citing the the same outdated benchmark from months ago, declare that APFS is slower than HFS+. Here's one from HN[1], with some back & forth arguments and further ad-hoc measurements. Yet nobody bothered running or even mentioned fio.
Or the "ZFS will eat your data if you don't use ECC memory" meme that refuse to die.
[0] Maybe it's because in order to refute "X is bad is wrong", it's hard to not state "X is bad" first, and biased / less astute audiences tend to stop paying attention after absorbing "X is bad"[2].
Imagine if CPU makers prevented you from running PassMark.
Hell, imagine if car's manufacturer warranty was voided if you took it to a dynamometer.
Why do we as a society allow these absurd rent seeking practices like these? What possible social good could come from preventing discussion about an enterprise software product?
Ferrari has the right to force you to give your car back if you do anything unauthorized with it, including any modification, or any unapproved testing. This was why Deadmau5 had to give back his Purrari (he modified the logo and theme to a nyancat theme)
I can see Ferrari not selling you any new cars because you did something they don't like, but I don't see how they have e the right to force you to give your car back (which you paid for) if you modify it.
Just like with all your online services, or your software.
That sounds like sort of claim that should be backed up with some pretty significant evidence.
This is far from the first time they've done this, as subsequent google searches will attest. I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
> The lucky few selected to get an F50 would make a down payment of $240,000. Yes, that's right: a down payment of $240,000... on a car. After that, monthly payments were $5,600. Five thousand. Six hundred. Per month. For 24 months. And then, at the end of the lease, you owned the car -- assuming you could come up with the final payment of $150,000. Total payments over the 2-year span: $534,400. Only then could you resell your F50 and make money off the wild speculation.
I also suggest the Google query.
Some (many?) Ferrari models aren't for sale. Rather, they're indefinitely leased.
(Of course nobody in danger of getting involved in a court case with Oracle is going to be asking me.)
> You may not
[…]
> - disclose results of any program benchmark tests without our prior consent.