3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoRedis 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 agoSpanner, 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...