4 ms·

Google internally announced a while back that Bigtable (which powers Spanner etc.) hit 1B queries/second -- there definitely exist systems with far larger scale

Google internally announced a while back that Bigtable (which powers Spanner etc.) hit 1B queries/second -- there definitely exist systems with far larger scale (though admittedly this is with lower atomicity requirements and probably includes reads etc.).

eastern 3y ago
VISA does 500m+ transactions per day and Spanner does 1B queries per day, but it's quite unlikely that what a transaction means on VISA is the same as what a query means on Spanner.
- filleokus 3y ago
  Spanner does over 1B queries per SECOND (but your other point still stands of course)
  - svennek 3y ago
    If it is readonly shared-nothing queries, I am sure the hardware I have in my flat can do that as well.. The hard parts are updates in a shared system with a single consistent "view" requirement..
    - why_only_15 3y ago
      The hardware in your flat definitely cannot do 1 billion queries per second -- that requires a massive, global system, which can probably also support a shared system with ~100,000x less queries.
rstuart4133 3y ago
That sounds so impressive I googled it. It's actually 6 billion queries per second: https://id.cloud-ace.com/how-youtube-uses-bigtable-to-power-one-of-the-worlds-largest-streaming-services/ https://id.cloud-ace.com/how-youtube-uses-bigtable-to-power-... But then I mulled over it for a while, and it occurred to me it's likely Sqlite does orders of magnitude more than that planet wide. Spanner's 1 billion per second is more impressive: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/developers-practitioners/how-spanner-and-bigquery-work-together-handle-transactional-and-analytical-workloads https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/developers-practitioner..., assuming it's returning a consistent view across many tables. But the Sqlite comparison still stands. Visa claims 24,000 TPS, but in reality runs at a 10'th of that. It would be interesting to see if Spanner could process the same 2,000 transactions per second. Sqlite definitely can't.

eastern 3y ago

VISA does 500m+ transactions per day and Spanner does 1B queries per day, but it's quite unlikely that what a transaction means on VISA is the same as what a query means on Spanner.

filleokus 3y ago
Spanner does over 1B queries per SECOND (but your other point still stands of course)
- svennek 3y ago
  If it is readonly shared-nothing queries, I am sure the hardware I have in my flat can do that as well.. The hard parts are updates in a shared system with a single consistent "view" requirement..
  - why_only_15 3y ago
    The hardware in your flat definitely cannot do 1 billion queries per second -- that requires a massive, global system, which can probably also support a shared system with ~100,000x less queries.

rstuart4133 3y ago

That sounds so impressive I googled it. It's actually 6 billion queries per second: https://id.cloud-ace.com/how-youtube-uses-bigtable-to-power-one-of-the-worlds-largest-streaming-services/ https://id.cloud-ace.com/how-youtube-uses-bigtable-to-power-... But then I mulled over it for a while, and it occurred to me it's likely Sqlite does orders of magnitude more than that planet wide. Spanner's 1 billion per second is more impressive: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/developers-practitioners/how-spanner-and-bigquery-work-together-handle-transactional-and-analytical-workloads https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/developers-practitioner..., assuming it's returning a consistent view across many tables. But the Sqlite comparison still stands. Visa claims 24,000 TPS, but in reality runs at a 10'th of that. It would be interesting to see if Spanner could process the same 2,000 transactions per second. Sqlite definitely can't.