4 ms·
16K writes/second is very impressive (Disclaimer: I work on competing products), from my experience of working on distributed database performance. I've been wa
by marknadal 10y ago
16K writes/second is very impressive (Disclaimer: I work on competing products), from my experience of working on distributed database performance. I've been watching various system's performance spec and this is quite good.
My only complaint is that most vendors report the SUM total writes/second across all nodes which I think is a bit unfair for titles/linkbaiting. Reporting single node writes/second is much more honest. Why? Because if they had spun up 64 nodes rather than 32... or any arbitrary number, they could get whatever number they want. That said, still very impressive.
- craigkerstiens 10y agoWe did try to strike a balance and be fair in the numbers. We explicitly didn't use our 7 million number using Postgres \copy (batch load) for this reason. It has unfortunately become a bit of a standard to show the aggregate instead of just the per node numbers. We aimed to make it as clear as we could in the front of the post, so hopefully it's a reasonable balance.
- wmfiv 10y agoIsn't linear scalability a hugely desirable feature? Especially for a SQL RDMS like Postgres?
- marknadal 10y agoVery desirable, but linear scalability is often a constraint of the business logic not a fundamental property of the database. For instance, if you are Twitter where everything is an append-only insert then achieving linear scalability ought be easier than if you are Google Docs where every update effects many other dependent records. Most benchmarks (and this isn't a bad thing) assume the former.