3 ms·

Let's say you get 50 writes / sec per node. You need what, 1000 nodes to get to the playing fields of Postgres, with a simpler and cheaper setup ? Right now it'

• theptip 10y ago
  > Let's say you get 50 writes / sec per node. If the DB can only handle 50 ops/sec then the point you are making here is valid. But see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13661349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13661349, that's a pathological worst-case number. You should find more accurate performance numbers for real-world workloads before making sweeping conclusions. Your original comment was: > Even if they manage to multiply this by 100 on the final release, it's still way weaker than a regular sql db This is what my comment, and the sibling comments, are objecting to, and I don't think you've substantiated this claim. 100x perf is probably well in excess of 10k writes/sec/node, which is solid single-node performance (though you'd not run a one-node CockroachDB deployment). Even a 10x improvement would get the system to above 1k writes/sec/node, which would allow large clusters (O(100) nodes) to serve more data than a SQL instance could handle. Obviously I'd prefer to be able to outperform a SQL instance on dataset size with 10 nodes, but for a large company, throwing 100 (or 1000) nodes at a business-critical dataset is not the end of the world.