That's why you won't see many serious comments bragging about the performance of SQL Server either.
Even though is has way fewer performance land-mines that you must design your entire architecture around than Oracle.
Anyway, you are correct that RAC is a very impressive piece of software. If Postgres had something like it, it would be a beast. It's not enough to save Oracle, though.
What sort of landmines are you referring to? This is quite interesting.
Still it's not just SQL Server and Oracle. PlanetScale - the author of this blog post - also had a DeWitt clause until literally just days ago. They replaced it with a slightly different clause but I wouldn't be willing to benchmark under their new rules.
It says benchmarking is allowed only if "the Benchmark is conducted in good faith and uses a fair and transparent methodology". What does good faith mean, or fair and transparent? You still effectively need their permission because otherwise they might decide you weren't benchmarking in "good faith" retroactively.
It's no surprise. The stuff that makes database benchmarking useless is the variety of features. You can always design a benchmark that makes a specific vendor look good or bad.
Like, Oracle can add missing indexes on the fly. If someone designed a benchmark in which the core table was huge but missing an index, PostgreSQL would die and Oracle would recover then fly. But how many would accept that as a fair test?
For example the Oracle's incapacity of reordering tests of different kinds (as in constants, functions, rows...) when optimizing a query; or the quadratic run time of triggers that change data in large updates.
That's why you won't see many serious comments bragging about the performance of SQL Server either.
Even though is has way fewer performance land-mines that you must design your entire architecture around than Oracle.
Anyway, you are correct that RAC is a very impressive piece of software. If Postgres had something like it, it would be a beast. It's not enough to save Oracle, though.