3 ms·
Honestly, still kind of impressive that an off-the-shelf concurrent hashmap can get within even a factor of two of the best-in-class hundreds-of-engineer-years
by saulrh 5y ago
Honestly, still kind of impressive that an off-the-shelf concurrent hashmap can get within even a factor of two of the best-in-class hundreds-of-engineer-years piece of open-source software and all the fine-tuning that major enterprise users have contributed to it. Like, given how much infra budget goes into running big KV stores, I'd assume that memcached has been optimized to within an inch of its life across almost the entirety of its codebase, all the way up to the really hardcore stuff. Being able to just... grab a package and get within spitting distance of it is kind of amazing. IME when you do that you're lucky to get within two OOM.
- AceJohnny2 5y agoI agree, but on the other hand you know the saying: "90% of the work takes 90% of the time, the 10% remaining takes the other 90% of the time." How much effort would be required to get memc to equal or surpass memcached's performance? Would it require rewriting the datastructures from scratch? Fine-tuning or rewriting the tokio?
- Aperocky 5y ago> factor of two of the best-in-class Would be surprised if it didn't, and most of the time it should probably be even. It's the edge cases that separates naive implementation from industrial usage. And off the shelf concurrent hashmaps are already pretty advanced.