3 ms·
> Note that I am comparing MariaDB vs MemSQL on a old desktop. 8 cores, 8 GB Ram, HD (non ssd) drive. ... so not really a good comparison then. You're comparin
by orf 10y ago
> Note that I am comparing MariaDB vs MemSQL on a old desktop. 8 cores, 8 GB Ram, HD (non ssd) drive.
... so not really a good comparison then. You're comparing the speed of your 8GB of RAM to an old, spinning bit of metal on an old desktop. Anyone who would use such a benchmark to drive their tech choices is being rather silly.
- no1youknowz 10y agoYou're missing the point entirely. I'm showing that a columnar store beat out a rowstore. With insane results. Not only that, but MemSQL on a really crappy desktop beat out a CitusDB cluster of 5 bare-metal servers, each with E5-2620 CPU v2, 128GB Ram, 10x4TB 7200 RPM SATA Drives, RAID 10. I actually still have the communication with Citus and here's similar workloads they worked on for me: Query 7: local 1139.0s, distributed 76.2s (~15x improvement) I could dig up the query, but I'm pretty sure it's similar. But guess what. It took days of consulting and optimising with CitusDB and one of their engineers. With MemSQL I was getting insane results in a matter of hours. Talking about costs. A MemSQL cluster is going to be significantly cheaper to run than a Citus/Postgres cluster when looking at tens of billions of rows. I know because I'm looking at the CitusDB numbers and the MemSQL numbers when using enterprise products and bare-metal servers.