3 ms·

Crystal! I have have never met someone who knows all the details about every piece of technology they use. You must be very smart.

nawgz 4y ago
> someone who knows all the details about every piece of technology they use > "how it works" in quotes Well, see, I can reason about SQL semantics via knowledge of B-trees, and I can understand how there's a time vs space tradeoff made in SQL implementations around indexing - add indexes to save time, but they write to disk. Didgets... I don't even know what it is. Do I query it with SQL? Does it only work from your UI DB browser? I could watch videos to find out but I find you a bit combative, so my desire to bridge the gap from my end is pretty low atm
setr 4y ago
I think it’s more of If someone tells you they’re faster than their well-funded, well-developed peers, then either: 1. They’re dramatically better engineers 2. They’ve constrained their data model to make it faster, likely at the cost of some usecases 3. They’ve developed some novel theory or set of tricks 4. Their benchmarks are limited/biased, or plainly wrong 5. They’ve gotten to drop backwards compatibility constraints their competitors couldn’t With usually the answer being 2 or 5 if they’re legitimately faster. In your case, based on glancing at videos 1. You seem to have widened the data model significantly 2. You’ve got no claims to novelty except the notion of didgets, which is an abstraction I’d expect to cost a pretty perf penny 3. You’ve got no claims to particular competency So… I’m instinctively betting on 4.
- didgetmaster 4y ago
  I don't blame you at all for betting on 4. There are plenty of snake-oil salesmen out there. That is why I invite you to download the software; load in your own data set; and perform whatever benchmark test you like. Don't trust me. Trust your own eyes.
  - setr 4y ago
    The problem is that I need to be first convinced it’s worth bothering with (though you won’t convince me personally, because I don’t have any need for a better-performing DB and I’m lazy). But if my theory is right, you’ll have a lot more success getting people to test it if you resolve the other items. Which I think you could do in probably two paragraphs on the site. Even if I could convince myself that it’s faster, I still wouldn’t be comfortable with it if I couldn’t explain, even at a high level, why it’s faster. And I would never assume it’s faster for anything except exactly what I tested (which inevitably is only somewhat representative of what I actually use it for)

nawgz 4y ago

> someone who knows all the details about every piece of technology they use > "how it works" in quotes Well, see, I can reason about SQL semantics via knowledge of B-trees, and I can understand how there's a time vs space tradeoff made in SQL implementations around indexing - add indexes to save time, but they write to disk. Didgets... I don't even know what it is. Do I query it with SQL? Does it only work from your UI DB browser? I could watch videos to find out but I find you a bit combative, so my desire to bridge the gap from my end is pretty low atm

setr 4y ago

I think it’s more of If someone tells you they’re faster than their well-funded, well-developed peers, then either: 1. They’re dramatically better engineers 2. They’ve constrained their data model to make it faster, likely at the cost of some usecases 3. They’ve developed some novel theory or set of tricks 4. Their benchmarks are limited/biased, or plainly wrong 5. They’ve gotten to drop backwards compatibility constraints their competitors couldn’t With usually the answer being 2 or 5 if they’re legitimately faster. In your case, based on glancing at videos 1. You seem to have widened the data model significantly 2. You’ve got no claims to novelty except the notion of didgets, which is an abstraction I’d expect to cost a pretty perf penny 3. You’ve got no claims to particular competency So… I’m instinctively betting on 4.

didgetmaster 4y ago
I don't blame you at all for betting on 4. There are plenty of snake-oil salesmen out there. That is why I invite you to download the software; load in your own data set; and perform whatever benchmark test you like. Don't trust me. Trust your own eyes.
- setr 4y ago
  The problem is that I need to be first convinced it’s worth bothering with (though you won’t convince me personally, because I don’t have any need for a better-performing DB and I’m lazy). But if my theory is right, you’ll have a lot more success getting people to test it if you resolve the other items. Which I think you could do in probably two paragraphs on the site. Even if I could convince myself that it’s faster, I still wouldn’t be comfortable with it if I couldn’t explain, even at a high level, why it’s faster. And I would never assume it’s faster for anything except exactly what I tested (which inevitably is only somewhat representative of what I actually use it for)