3 ms·
For example, going to the database and retrieving the data uses less CPU and time than deserializing the data into an object into Ruby. That is the sense I am t
by spullara 14y ago
For example, going to the database and retrieving the data uses less CPU and time than deserializing the data into an object into Ruby. That is the sense I am talking about. The bottleneck becomes the code talking to the database rather than the database itself.
- coolsunglasses 14y agoThat's...that's not how it works. I was talking about the scalability of the database as that's a brick wall you hit long before anything else. You can always fire up more rails workers, scaling persistence is a PITA. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me in order to make a strange and irrelevant point?
- spullara 14y agoI'm not making a pure scalability argument. Your solution of scaling the rails tier still suffers from far higher latency thus making choice of language/VM relevant. Rails is very, very slow — even if you cache everything behind it. So yes, you can scale it up, but it is at least 10x more expensive to do so.