But in another subject. Why is this really news? The Elphel Eyesis 4pi designs are online for 5 years. http://wiki.elphel.com/index.p...
So people like to put expensive DBs on expensive servers?
Anyway, I have no idea what that web site is trying to say. I can't find a single mention of Postgres anywhere. It's all MSSQL, Sybase, Oracle, DB2, and some databases I've never heard of. Does the benchmarking software only run on those databases or something?
Check out the why: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wi... The entire industry including some open source databases target this benchmark. Obviously you don't have to play ball, but others are doing.
Splitting a query into parallel chunks only helps when your database server is idle, you know.
Many applications do not have many clients at the same time, but require peak performance. An example is GIS applications, the more obvious is crunching data for visualisation.
It sounds to me that your needs are different than what the rest of us expect from a database. Data warehousing perhaps?
We are talking about software that can handle hundreds of gigabytes of data. But the parent suggest PostgreSQL as example for the diversity SQL Server has to offer. If some article on PostgreSQL is written and someone replies SQLite does all that... what will your reply be?