5 ms·
Yeah, I want to drool but utilizing that many threads in "practical" scenarios seems difficult. It would probably be great for messaging systems though!
by suneilp 11y ago
Yeah, I want to drool but utilizing that many threads in "practical" scenarios seems difficult. It would probably be great for messaging systems though!
- glogla 11y agoNot just that, but database performance drops quickly with writes. 1M transactions per second with 100 % reads might as well mean 10K transactions per second with 95 % readsm 5 % writes ("the usual OLTP workload" per common wisdom) and 1K transactions per second on 50 % reads 50 % writes. Or even less. Or much more. It's difficult to even quess.
- arielweisberg 11y agoWhat stood out to me was that the measurement was taken against 20 tables. That makes me wonder if a smaller number of tables would have hit contention even in a read only workload. Well it's not the only database that has this problem. I wonder if partitioning is enough or if you really need separate tables.
- hyperpape 11y ago"The data set is 1 million rows in 20 tables. Fewer tables can be used, but below 4 tables the performance drops somewhat due to a hot spot in the table definition cache."