3 ms·
Flagged for utter nonsense. Author doesn't know what he's talking about, much less what he's measuring. Submitter put link-bait title that is not even related
by moe 18y ago
Flagged for utter nonsense.
Author doesn't know what he's talking about, much less what he's measuring.
Submitter put link-bait title that is not even related to the article.
How did this get voted up?
- jsrfded 18y agoAgreed. Those numbers make no sense whatsoever.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- wheels 18y agoI know this area fairly well and the only thing that I see in the numbers that looks surprising (or rather, wrong) is that the disk cache obviously wasn't being flushed after writes.
- moe 18y agoWhich is rather a big deal when you benchmark a persistent kv-store versus a volatile one, don't you think? The persistent one is eventually i/o bound. Furthermore whatever he is measuring, it is neither tokyo tyrant nor memcache. Memcached doesn't break a sweat doing upwards of 10k ops/sec on moderate hardware, especially when all you're doing is increments. He managed to get 2000/sec out of it. So again, whatever he's measuring, it's not the "performance of key/value stores". Both the article-title and the linkbait HN title are wrong.