3 ms·
Depending on contention and RTT, as a specialized OLTP DBMS, TB can do roughly 1000-2000x more performance than a single node OLGP DBMS (cf. the live demo in th
by jorangreef 1y ago
Depending on contention and RTT, as a specialized OLTP DBMS, TB can do roughly 1000-2000x more performance than a single node OLGP DBMS (cf. the live demo in the talk above)… but also with strict serializability. You don’t need to sacrifice correctness or real-time resolution, and that’s important. For example, if you need to do real-time balance checks.
- justinclift 1y agoHmmm, I guess it sounds weird to me to be talking "RTT" (round trip time) when the example is "a single node". I'll watch your talk properly at some point and see if it makes sense to me after that. :)
- cma256 1y agoNode count doesn't matter. You could use an embedded database and encounter the same problem. There is some time T between when you acquire a lock and release it. Depending on the amount of contention in your system, this will have some affect on total throughput (i.e. Amdahl's law).
- justinclift 1y agoHow familiar are you with MVCC? https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/mvcc-intro.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/mvcc-intro.html Asking because needing a lock for changing a row isn't the only approach that can be taken.
- senderista 1y agoAlmost all commercial MVCC implementations (including Postgres) use row locks. Very few use OCC even though it's arguably a more natural fit for MVCC. Pessimistic locking is simply more robust over varied workloads.
- moffers 1y agoTB seems really awesome, but is there non-DebitCredit use cases where it can be applied effectively? I like trying to find off-label uses for cool technology
- jorangreef 1y agoThanks! Check out https://tigerfans.io https://tigerfans.io