| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MemSQL the "world's fastest database"? |
| Date: | 2012-07-06 01:45:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4FF64346.9020507@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 07/01/2012 01:00 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Considering I can build a pgsql 8.4 machine with 256G RAM and 64
> Opteron cores and a handful of SSDs or HW RAID that can do REAL 7k to
> 8k RW TPS right now for well under $10k, 20k TPS on an in memory
> database isn't all that impressive.
Again, their TPS numbers are useless without a contest of how big each
transaction is, and we don't know. I can take MemSQL seriously when
there's a press release describing how to replicate their benchmark
independently. Then it's useful to look at the absolute number.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Kerr | 2012-07-06 02:12:24 | What would effect planning time? |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2012-07-06 01:42:19 | Re: The need for clustered indexes to boost TPC-V performance |