3 ms·
And: "FASTER achieves higher throughput than current systems, by more than two orders of magnitude, and scales better than current pure in-memory data structure
by kodablah 8y ago
And: "FASTER achieves higher throughput than current systems, by more than two orders of magnitude, and scales better than current pure in-memory data structures, for in-memory working sets."
Looking at 7.2 of the paper, they probably mean "more than 2x", definitely not exponentially faster in most cases. Still nice work though.
- jamesblonde 8y agoTwo orders of magnitude is patently not true. MySQL Cluster has been benched at 200m ops/s (where operations are part of 2PC transactions!). And that in 2015! https://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/benchmarks/mysql-cluster/ https://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/benchmarks/mysql-cluster/ The echo chamber of silicon valley is an important reason why MySQL Cluster is not more popular.
- CyberDildonics 8y agoAs well as being owned by Oracle.
- cliffordj 8y agoFrom your link: "This was achieved with 32 (out of a maximum 48) data nodes." The project being discussed is benchmarked on a single node, not a cluster. This is why they compare performance to RocksDB.