4 ms·
Perhaps you missed the point of the whole exercise: To respond to a high-profile yet poor representation of RDBMS performance. The OP repeated this reasoning m
by madair 17y ago
Perhaps you missed the point of the whole exercise: To respond to a high-profile yet poor representation of RDBMS performance.
The OP repeated this reasoning more than once.
He showed that the facts cited by Digg do not make sense unless we take into account poor database technology, poor database configuration, or poor database skills, or all three.
Perhaps you disagree with that. However, that's not what you said above. The OP also discussed the nature of this micro-benchmark, and it's relevance despite his own poor knowledge of the actual data characteristics.
So in other words, he has already directly addressed your concern in advance, more than once on that too as a matter of fact. Considering that fact, you haven't actually responded to his article, you just wrote a "tends to" point about micro-benchmarks, I think it's pretty clear that Dennis Forbes knows a thing or two about benchmarks.
Blah blah blah to empty air, this comment page is pretty much a fact-free and nuance-free flame war anyway, so what's the point, sorta embarrassing for the esteemed HN crowd.
- regularfry 17y agoIt would have helped the author's case to try (at least approximately) replicating Digg's performance problem on a local MySQL install before switching technologies - that would have given some indication that he'd made the right assumptions about the problem and wasn't testing something unrelated. No matter how good the author is (and I've got no reason to suspect that he's anything other than a top-rate engineer), it's awfully easy to be led down a blind alley on this sort of problem.
- steveklabnik 17y ago> you just wrote a "tends to" point about micro-benchmarks I am not a database guy. I also don't know enough about Digg's set up to say with authority if these comments make sense. So I specifically wrote "I feel," "tends to," and "imply" because I'm not comfortable making an absolute statement about the issue. However... I don't see how this test is in any way relevant. a 30GB database? Running on totally different hardware? In any case, re-reading the article again, I see that relevance paragraph now. I guess I missed it the first time around between all of the flaming, trollish comments about both NoSQL and MySQL. But I still don't see how we can extrapolate this test in any way to imply anything about Digg's practices at all. Then again, it's 8:30am.
- hp1995acer 17y agoHow does one "miss a paragraph"? What a unclever excuse for missing the point.
- steveklabnik 17y agoBecause it was 8:30am when I read this, and I usually wake up at 10. It still doesn't change my original point, however. Just because he acknowledges that the benchmark is unrelated to what he's talking about doesn't excuse him from the fact that it's unrelated to what he's talking about. It also doesn't change the fact that the article is still a troll, regardless of the correctness of his benchmark.