hyc_symas

46 ms·

1. 481.▲
   by hyc_symas 14y ago

   Note that the LevelDB, Kyoto Cabinet, and SQLite3 configs are identical to what the Google LevelDB authors used in their original benchmark. http://leveldb.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/benchmark.html The only thing different about the Sym
2. 482.▲
   by hyc_symas 14y ago

   Correct. In synchronous mode full ACID semantics are guaranteed. Writable mmap avoids memcpy()/write() overhead but msync() is still performed.
3. 483.▲
   by hyc_symas 14y ago

   Better to make everything as simple and as easy as possible. App-managed chunking is error-prone, and it forces redundancy of implementations. Likewise, "you have an extra in memory copy" can make or break a system. OpenLDAP slapd using LMD
4. 484.▲
   by hyc_symas 14y ago

   Still nonsense. "AFAIK memory mapping doesn't work asynchronously" - clearly you don't know much. Reader threads in LMDB never block (except for pagefaults to pull data in, which are obviously unavoidable).
5. 485.▲
   by hyc_symas 14y ago

   Nonsense. Whatever the calling app does with the data will always be an additional cost over what the DB does with the data. Eliminating the DB's cost doesn't invalidate the measurement. It only shows how much waste is going on in other DB
6. 486.▲
   Fastest Filesystems for Database work(symas.com)

   1 points by hyc_symas 14y ago|0 comments