3 ms·
Expanding upon this line of thought I am not sure their comment RE: storing data indexed in 32GB of RAM holds any meaning considering it requires a hop over the
by Zombieball 10y ago
Expanding upon this line of thought I am not sure their comment RE: storing data indexed in 32GB of RAM holds any meaning considering it requires a hop over the wire to access. Locally stored indexes on disk would likely be much faster.
I would imagine a smooth update mechanism could allow you to update file indexes without loosing too much agility on feature development but come with huge security gains.
- MichaelGG 10y agoWell they say "machines" so it might be much more than 32GB. (Though on disk it might be strongly compressed.) And on HDDs, a few seeks is actually slower than a network round-trip.
- Zombieball 10y agoUncompressed might indeed eat up tons of disk space. Admittedly I was thinking of an SSD + some caching in RAM when thinking of this timing. But I was always under the impression an HDD seek would be on the order of 10's of ms? I'd assume a query to a cloud service would be on the order of 100-200ms.
- MichaelGG 10y agoThe network latency should be somewhere around 40ms assuming you're in the US on a proper connection. If a query takes 10 disk seeks (10ms each) vs 10 RAM accesses + HTTP parsing...