Show HN: LevelDB outperforms others on a cheap phone (Microsoft ESE and SQLite)

Re:Show HN: LevelDB outperforms others on a cheap phone (Mic... by hendzen on Friday March 25, 2016 @01:08PM (#11361198)

500 inserts is way too small for a database benchmark. At that size point you're stressing the in-memory format of the database and not the actual IO performance. I'm guessing LevelDB just wins because it's considerably simpler and doesn't have to go through a schema layer - it's literally just a LSM tree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: LevelDB outperforms others on a cheap phone (Mic... by maxpert on Friday March 25, 2016 @01:46PM (#11361485)

I tried it with 5K to 10K entries and it still out performs SQLite or any other engines. For SQLite the default and most probabilistic way a programmer will implement a key value store. You can try the sample on your own machine as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: LevelDB outperforms others on a cheap phone (Mic... by hendzen on Friday March 25, 2016 @01:53PM (#11361541)

Well, you're also doing a random insert. That workload will always perform better on an LSM tree when compared to a B/B+ Tree (used by the non-LevelDB engines). Can you post sequential read/write benchmarks in addition?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: LevelDB outperforms others on a cheap phone (Mic... by maxpert on Friday March 25, 2016 @02:16PM (#11361708)

I the article I have already covered that LevelDB is known to have better sequential performance anywayz http://leveldb.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/benchmark.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: LevelDB outperforms others on a cheap phone (Mic... by pvg on Friday March 25, 2016 @02:32PM (#11361809)

Do you mean 'likely'? Because 'probabilistic' is something else.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: LevelDB outperforms others on a cheap phone (Mic... by maxpert on Friday March 25, 2016 @02:35PM (#11361826)

I would say likely

[ Parent | on HN ]