4 ms·
Eh, I find these comparisons of "X on local SSDs" vs "Y on networked storage" completely meaningless. Even worse: "DISCLAIMER: this benchmark script was not v
by carterehsmith 9y ago
Eh, I find these comparisons of "X on local SSDs" vs "Y on networked storage" completely meaningless.
Even worse:
"DISCLAIMER: this benchmark script was not validated and certified by the Transaction Processing Council."
Of course. Try certifying it and see if it still stands.
Look, there is like a billion db vendors trying to push their ware every year, every month. Many of them fake the benchmarks (like, not writing to the permenant storage at commit). Which is why we have standards. So let's report standard TPC-C numbers.
- arjunnarayan 9y agoAuthor here. The point of certification is to ensure transparency. CockroachDB is open-source. Our entire benchmarking - tools, scripts, are also open source, and the results are from runs on public cloud providers. You can replay our entire benchmarking runs. We think this is more transparent than auditor certification. Auditor certification is also time consuming and expensive. We'd have to do it with an on-premises deployment, which means that the auditor certified version wouldn't be easily reproducible the way our current benchmarks are. If we see customer demand for auditor certified results, we'd certainly be open to the idea.