3 ms·

"The blazing speed of Redis compared to traditional databases boils down to two key factors: in-memory storage and optimized data structures." Lack of strict A

"The blazing speed of Redis compared to traditional databases boils down to two key factors: in-memory storage and optimized data structures." Lack of strict ACID properties. This is the thing that majority of software coders have no idea about. Every data store in the world bragging about its performance gives up on some aspects of one or more of A, C, I, D. I wouldn't trust any serious finance or warehouse operations on anything but relational database management system, preferably with SQL.

SR2Z 3y ago
IMO, Redis is atomic and consistent because it's single-threaded and has transactions. It's not isolated because it doesn't need to be: concurrent transactions are serializable, due to the DB being single-threaded. And it's not durable, but _that's what it says on the tin_: Redis is an in-memory database.
- HackerThemAll 3y ago
  Thank you for confirming what I wrote above. Considering they've given up on "D", which is associated with the biggest performance penalty, Redis is darn slow.
  - SR2Z 3y ago
    Redis is pretty fast, actually. I know you might not think so, but in my experience, it's pretty fast. The only other datastore that I have used with comparable latency and lots of data is Spanner (the internal version at Google) and the hardware requirements for it are... prohibitive. The goal of Redis is to share simple data structures across the network, not to compete with a full-fat database.
    - HackerThemAll 3y ago
      Spanner, of course, is out of the question. I like it, but it's so expensive that even Oracle Database looks cheap next to it. You might find it interesting that a single-node general-purpose RDBMS with SQL 8 years ago was capable of doing 1.2 million simple transactions per second, in this scenario I suppose they were not durable, just like Redis. I haven't read anywhere about Redis being able to get near that number, therefore I still call it slow. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/sql-server-blog/how-bwin-is-using-sql-server-2016-in-memory-oltp-to-achieve/ba-p/305413 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/sql-server-blog/how-b...

SR2Z 3y ago

IMO, Redis is atomic and consistent because it's single-threaded and has transactions. It's not isolated because it doesn't need to be: concurrent transactions are serializable, due to the DB being single-threaded. And it's not durable, but _that's what it says on the tin_: Redis is an in-memory database.

HackerThemAll 3y ago
Thank you for confirming what I wrote above. Considering they've given up on "D", which is associated with the biggest performance penalty, Redis is darn slow.
- SR2Z 3y ago
  Redis is pretty fast, actually. I know you might not think so, but in my experience, it's pretty fast. The only other datastore that I have used with comparable latency and lots of data is Spanner (the internal version at Google) and the hardware requirements for it are... prohibitive. The goal of Redis is to share simple data structures across the network, not to compete with a full-fat database.
  - HackerThemAll 3y ago
    Spanner, of course, is out of the question. I like it, but it's so expensive that even Oracle Database looks cheap next to it. You might find it interesting that a single-node general-purpose RDBMS with SQL 8 years ago was capable of doing 1.2 million simple transactions per second, in this scenario I suppose they were not durable, just like Redis. I haven't read anywhere about Redis being able to get near that number, therefore I still call it slow. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/sql-server-blog/how-bwin-is-using-sql-server-2016-in-memory-oltp-to-achieve/ba-p/305413 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/sql-server-blog/how-b...