4 ms·
1,280,625,752,550 rows per second is pretty impressive even if it was done on a million dollar's worth of CPU.
by AmVess 9y ago
1,280,625,752,550 rows per second is pretty impressive even if it was done on a million dollar's worth of CPU.
- StreamBright 9y agoAnd do you have a business use case that requires that?
- rplnt 9y agoAnalytics, BI, ... More about rows/second it's about lowering minutes/operation.
- manigandham 9y agoSome people do... but this is about showing the potential.
- AndyNemmity 9y agoI've worked on a ton of businesses cases that require it. This is what I worked on for years. It's generally a large company, large issue sort of problem. You can throw millions in hardware/software into a problem that saves you 100's of millions.
- nikita 9y agoWe can solve it quite efficiently. You can define an index on a columnstore table and we will maintain order on a per node basis
- mnw21cam 9y agoSo, for anyone who thought the headline was a little bit excessive, it looks like this article is using short-scale trillion and billion.