it's essentially saying "we have something to hide" (like bad performance...), or "we don't want competition"
This seems a totally imaginary dichotomy when literally the comment you're replying to presents an alternative option, namely; "We don't want you to publish things that are almost always going to be wrong and misleading"
Comments
This is why a lot of commercial databases have a "you may not publish benchmarks" clause in the license.
It seems unfair and restrictive, but benchmarking is hard, and even where users get everything else right every data load is different.
It's easy to see why companies don't want writeups like this one dominating searches for "<database> performance".
It seems even more unfair and restrictive to do that.
If you prohibit benchmarks, it's essentially saying "we have something to hide" (like bad performance...), or "we don't want competition".
I think it's far better to point out the flaws and specifics than to censor any attempt at comparison.
This seems a totally imaginary dichotomy when literally the comment you're replying to presents an alternative option, namely; "We don't want you to publish things that are almost always going to be wrong and misleading"