3 ms·
I guess you're just trying to show how to use MapD rather than showing when it makes sense to use it, which is cool. For the latter, I found the results over he
by felixge 9y ago
I guess you're just trying to show how to use MapD rather than showing when it makes sense to use it, which is cool. For the latter, I found the results over here fairly interesting: http://tech.marksblogg.com/benchmarks.html http://tech.marksblogg.com/benchmarks.html
As far as "big/expensive toys" go, I was referring to total cost of ownership of putting something like MapD in production vs PostgreSQL. The latter can run on any machine (no GPU needed), there are plenty of hosted services, and there is a large pool of people familiar with it. If this is just about running some analysis on a local machine, that argument doesn't apply so much :).
- tmostak 9y agoNote that MapD can run on CPU as well and is generally quite fast. I haven’t benchmarked but on a dataset of this size the numbers might be similar. I’d also say that while this is a great example of getting up and running with MapD the system really shines when doing interactive queries over datasets from the 100M to 100B record range without requiring indexes.