News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by fapjacks on Thursday February 04, 2016 @03:38PM (#11037022)
This is not the first time I have seen an anti-InfluxDB post that also subtly pushes PostgreSQL in its place. Now I totally agree and I am not happy with InfluxDB's performance, and maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it's interesting I've seen this a handful of times.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by ddorian43 on Thursday February 04, 2016 @03:49PM (#11037104)
Nothing against influxdb. But if you have 100X, you probably were doing something shitty before.

I use postgresql as comparison because antirez did in http://oldblog.antirez.com/post/redis-persistence-demystifie... (and ~none else has done something similar).

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by pauldix on Thursday February 04, 2016 @03:47PM (#11037091)
Have a look at this release. The write performance is massively better than it was. We did tests writing up to 100B points against a single server.

The next release will focus on improving query performance, but this one still works for many cases.

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by officialchicken on Thursday February 04, 2016 @04:25PM (#11037362)
"Massively better" doesn't mean deployable to production either. Especially not if you've only tested with a single point of failure with a single sized payload. But I'm willing to give it a third (and final) trial:

1) Does "DELETE * FROM foo" still cause the system to lockup, freeze, and require a restart to free memory? Or are there other conditions/queries that cause the system to become unstable?

2) There's no README/CHANGELOG/dependencies info on the download page. Which is the preferred version of Go to install on my servers for Influxdb - 1.4 or 1.5?

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by jtblin on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:09AM (#11039617)
I'd guess go version doesn't matter, you should install the binary which is statically linked, no?
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by cbsmith on Thursday February 04, 2016 @05:22PM (#11037774)
Massive performance improvements like that tend to come down to overall changes in the data structure and/or algorithm. This is like, "oh yeah, maybe we should do LSM?" or "maybe compressed bitmaps?" kind of stuff. What what the magic?
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by CyrusL on Thursday February 04, 2016 @05:27PM (#11037809)
New storage engine.

Introduction from last October: https://influxdata.com/blog/new-storage-engine-time-structur...

Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by cbsmith on Thursday February 04, 2016 @09:42PM (#11039052)
Oh right, I remember when that blog post came out. It was amusing because I'd built an in-house metric store much like InfluxDB (using a LevelDB engine), and reached much the same inflection point and decision. I so should have open sourced that so you poor saps didn't have to experience my pain.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by dbettin on Thursday February 04, 2016 @03:54PM (#11037139)
What is the query performance like today? And, what are your goals for query performance after the next release?
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by flowless on Thursday February 04, 2016 @03:47PM (#11037089)
I would like to see actual comparison of both. I'm going pg way myself but due to millisecond precision of timestamps required for handling scientific data.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by pauldix on Thursday February 04, 2016 @03:50PM (#11037113)
InfluxDB supports timestamps down to the nanosecond. We recommend that you only use the precision you need, since you'll get better compression that way.
Re:InfluxDB v0.10 GA with hundreds of thousands writes/sec, ... by flowless on Thursday February 04, 2016 @04:13PM (#11037262)
Good to know, thanks!