3 ms·
PR copy aside, the claimed performance differences relative to RocksDB and WiredTiger are typical of many storage engines, the performance doesn't stand out. I
by jandrewrogers 7y ago
PR copy aside, the claimed performance differences relative to RocksDB and WiredTiger are typical of many storage engines, the performance doesn't stand out. I don't think either RocksDB or WT has made a serious claim to prioritizing performance in their designs in any case.
Also, I have to wonder how narrowly "open-source storage engine for SSDs" is being defined here such that it excludes so many earlier storage engines in claiming the title of "first".
- tzone 7y agoAll storage engines prioritize performance? Back in the day, way before WiredTiger got acquired by MongoDB they also had very similar graphs showing perf differences with RocksDB and InnoDB: https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/wiki/Read-scalability https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/wiki/Read-scalabili... https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/wiki/iiBench-results https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/wiki/iiBench-result... https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/wiki/YCSB-Mapkeeper-benchmark https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/wiki/YCSB-Mapkeeper... And of course RocksDB has had similar graphs to showing perf against other systems. Every system manages to find a benchmark that fits their narrative :) Reality is both RocksDB and WiredTiger are high performance storage engines, and they are both optimized for SSDs too. These type of benchmarks rarely tell real story.