1.25 Billion Key/Value Pairs in Redis 2.0.0-rc3 on a 32GB Machine

Re:1.25 Billion Key/Value Pairs in Redis 2.0.0-rc3 on a 32GB... by mahmud on Sunday July 25, 2010 @10:25PM (#1546929)

I’m kind of tempted to re-run this test using LISTS, then SETS, then SORTED SETS just to see how they all compare from a storage point of view.

Yes please, that would be much appreciated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:1.25 Billion Key/Value Pairs in Redis 2.0.0-rc3 on a 32GB... by jzawodn on Sunday July 25, 2010 @10:34PM (#1546949)

I figured it'd be useful to do... just need to block off a bit of time. Perhaps in the next 24 hours if I'm lucky.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:1.25 Billion Key/Value Pairs in Redis 2.0.0-rc3 on a 32GB... by yosh on Sunday July 25, 2010 @11:03PM (#1546988)

I've noticed that sorted sets have noticeably more overhead than the other types.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:1.25 Billion Key/Value Pairs in Redis 2.0.0-rc3 on a 32GB... by subwindow on Sunday July 25, 2010 @11:18PM (#1547015)

If that's true, I wonder why. Maybe is they are trying to get O(1) access? Storing it the 'default' way would be O(log n) which isn't bad, but might still be unacceptable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:1.25 Billion Key/Value Pairs in Redis 2.0.0-rc3 on a 32GB... by subwindow on Sunday July 25, 2010 @11:37PM (#1547053)

Ah, I found my answer. Sets are stored in both a skip list and a hash table. So the overhead is indeed high.

[ Parent | on HN ]