Our team signed a contract with Cognitect for Datomic late 2017.
This clause was in-place and stood out to me as well. I had a chance to ask their legal team about it. The clause is written in legal-ese, which always sounds overbearing.
I asked the question in the positive sense, "what if have some really nice metrics from our use cases, and want to talk about them at a conference?" They simply asked to be consulted and request written permission to share. The intent, like others have noted, is to request (legally: insist) that Cognitect have a chance to review and point out potential implementation issues (good or bad) prior to customers making performance statements about their product.
The clause can/does put a damper on 'notes from the field' reports, which often help when deciding on tech direction.I look for community based reports to reinforce perceptions of a tool (to a degree). Completely agree with OP, do your own performance testing.
One thing I will say is that it would be hard for someone who hasn't invested in learning the inner-workings of Datomic's decoupled architecture to pick apart storage speed vs. transactor speed. For example, storage speed (SQL, DEV, Dynamo, etc.) is not a concern of Datomic, but a key dependency to measurable perf. This may change in the AWS service announced today, and become more uniform on dynamo and S3 "storage resources". https://docs.datomic.com/cloud/whatis/architecture.html#stor...
Datomic is a unique product and there are many ways to make it sing (or blow up) depending on how you use it. We designed data models, streaming processes, and queries with Datomic in mind and have had success. Exactly how much success, I'm not at liberty to say just yet.
This clause was in-place and stood out to me as well. I had a chance to ask their legal team about it. The clause is written in legal-ese, which always sounds overbearing.
I asked the question in the positive sense, "what if have some really nice metrics from our use cases, and want to talk about them at a conference?" They simply asked to be consulted and request written permission to share. The intent, like others have noted, is to request (legally: insist) that Cognitect have a chance to review and point out potential implementation issues (good or bad) prior to customers making performance statements about their product.
The clause can/does put a damper on 'notes from the field' reports, which often help when deciding on tech direction.I look for community based reports to reinforce perceptions of a tool (to a degree). Completely agree with OP, do your own performance testing.
One thing I will say is that it would be hard for someone who hasn't invested in learning the inner-workings of Datomic's decoupled architecture to pick apart storage speed vs. transactor speed. For example, storage speed (SQL, DEV, Dynamo, etc.) is not a concern of Datomic, but a key dependency to measurable perf. This may change in the AWS service announced today, and become more uniform on dynamo and S3 "storage resources". https://docs.datomic.com/cloud/whatis/architecture.html#stor...
Datomic is a unique product and there are many ways to make it sing (or blow up) depending on how you use it. We designed data models, streaming processes, and queries with Datomic in mind and have had success. Exactly how much success, I'm not at liberty to say just yet.