4 ms·
> But even for less super-concurrent databases, C++ databases don't outperform Java ones. In this benchmark, the Java databases (H2 and HSQLDB) almost always ou
by anarazel 11y ago
> But even for less super-concurrent databases, C++ databases don't outperform Java ones. In this benchmark, the Java databases (H2 and HSQLDB) almost always outperform MySQL and Postgres: http://www.h2database.com/html/performance.html http://www.h2database.com/html/performance.html (and I don't even know how the Java solutions handle concurrency, whether they do locking, optimistic locking or a clever combination, like SpaceBase).
It's hardly surprising that a vendor's own benchmark shows it as winning against the competition.
- pron 11y agoLet's suppose for a second that the numbers are biased in the Java databases' favor. I doubt that other benchmarks would show such dramatically different results that would have those databases losing by much. So maybe they're not ahead as those number show (though I have little reason to doubt them), but a little behind. The difference would still not justify the claim that C++ provides superior performance for databases. Also, it's an open source database with no commercial support by the authors, so I wouldn't really call them "vendors".
- pron 11y agoLet's suppose for a second that the numbers are biased in the Java databases' favor. I doubt that other benchmarks would show such dramatically different results that would have those databases losing by much. So maybe they're not ahead as those number show (though I have little reason to doubt them), but a little behind. The difference would still not justify the claim that C++ provides superior performance for databases. Also, it's an open source database with no commercial support by the authors, so I wouldn't really call them "vendors".