3 ms·
> Well, I think "can this be held in memory" can be a stupid question. absolutely not. questions like that give you a baseline for idealized performance. not t
by a-dub 5y ago
> Well, I think "can this be held in memory" can be a stupid question.
absolutely not. questions like that give you a baseline for idealized performance. not that you should ever expect to reach it, but it does give a good sanity check for whether or not a technology choice is a sane one.
i've seen cassandra clusters used for datasets that would fit in a sqlite (with indexes!) in a ramdisk on a cheap laptop.
so yes, scale problems go both ways. and to your point, the "difficult" problems aren't harder necessarily, often just those that you (and your team) don't know how to solve.
- Traster 5y agoMy point was that there are plenty of examples of systems/requirements where the dimensions of a problem are just comically out of proportion for that question- where you can't just fit this in memory, you can fit it in memory on a commodore 64, and that whether something fits in memory is not how you should thinking about the problem.
- chii 5y ago> scale problems go both ways. and to your point, the "difficult" problems aren't harder necessarily i like the old adage: anyone can build a bridge. Only an engineer can build a bridge that can barely standup.
- jiveturkey 5y agoI trust that is meant in the Colin Chapman sense? The racecar that fails the second after it crosses the finish line is the perfect racecar. Anything more reliable than that is excess weight, performance, cost, etc. I like that as well, idealistically. However, we work at average places with average coworkers, and are ourselves average. I'm happy to work with folks that can "only" overbuild the bridge. There's far too many people that are on the wrong side of bridge endurance.