4 ms·
That's just vile. is there any /good/ defense of this kind of agreement other than a 'think of the children' argument that people might make a mistake in their
by mercer 6y ago
That's just vile. is there any /good/ defense of this kind of agreement other than a 'think of the children' argument that people might make a mistake in their performance reviews?
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y agoIt's annoying, but it's pretty standard in commercial databases: if your competitors refuse to allow public benchmarks, all it can do is hurt you.
- dwohnitmok 6y agoHow standard is it? As far as I know among databases MS SQL and Oracle do this but do other commercial databases do this as well?
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y agohttps://danluu.com/anon-benchmark/ https://danluu.com/anon-benchmark/ It’s common enough to have a name: “DeWitt clause”. It sounds like IBM is the only major commercial rdbms vendor to allow benchmarks?
- dwohnitmok 6y agoThat article only lists MS and Oracle though. Apart from IBM, I don't think CockroachDB Enterprise has such a prohibition, nor does Google Spanner (I think?), nor does Amazon Aurora (again I think?). And of course all the open source competitors don't have this clause. Basically my impression is that DeWitt clauses are common enough to be well-known, but still in the distinct minority. That's just an impression though.