3 ms·
Two things that are sorely missing in this comparison to NoSql is: How are they performing horizontal scaling, I'm guessing they aren't, without addressing the
by Illniyar 10y ago
Two things that are sorely missing in this comparison to NoSql is:
How are they performing horizontal scaling, I'm guessing they aren't, without addressing the issue of sharding and scaling they can't really compare the solution to NoSql - it is the number 1 feature that NoSql has over RDBMS.
If they are achieving 1ms response time , then they almost certainly have the entire table in memory cache.
What happens when the data grows beyond the size of the memory and it's not financially feasible to get a larger memory instance.
- ysleepy 10y ago1. They probably don't need sharding, since the dataset is small enough to just replicate it in mirrors. 2. 1ms is achievable with SSDs, but 200K q/minute seems slow my gut feeling tells me. This post is more like "ha we don't need NoSQL for this special use case" - Once you need scaling and some sort of atomics, you quickly have to use HBase for row-level atomicity and scaling. Redis is probably better suited for the posted usecase anyway.
- Illniyar 10y agoWhy HBase? why not just shard your keys?