3 ms·
I don't really get what you're trying to say. Are you defending the fact that you benchmarked whats essentially a "function() { return 1; }", called that a "da
by ccommsxx 9y ago
I don't really get what you're trying to say.
Are you defending the fact that you benchmarked whats essentially a "function() { return 1; }", called that a "database operation" and then proceeded to claim to have achieved a level of performance "not possible with other databases"? Can you really not see how that is wrong on more than just one level?
Or are you saying it's okay because other "javascript database" vendors are also cheating in their benchmarks?
- marknadal 9y agoWoah woah, that is not true! `gun.val(cb)` performs a real dynamic read, you can even uncomment the `console.log(val)` to see it printed in the debugging console (although note: `console.log` has terrible performance, so don't have it on when you are actually benchmarking). Other javascript databases and even other regular in-memory databases do similar benchmarks. We (both them and us) note at the bottom of the article that: "Take all performance testing benchmarks with a huge grain of salt." Which is why we have our PANIC tests (see my other comments on where to find them and how to run them, let me know if you need any help). There is nothing unethical about our tests (and they are not the only tests), so /please/ call me out, but please don't misinform other readers that the op is a static function, that is misleading and damaging. Is there anything specific I can do to alleviate any concerns?