R17 on spinning disk faster than PostgreSQL on SSD

Re:R17 on spinning disk faster than PostgreSQL on SSD by kemiller on Monday August 15, 2011 @11:16PM (#2889679)

I think it's disingenuous to measure load+index+query time and then declare that you're faster. Not saying there aren't use cases where that's valuable (analytics/warehousing db for one) but it's not what most people are looking for. Is this usable as a transactional store? What do those numbers look like?

The pipeline model is very interesting, though, and I'll take a look for our warehouse, which at some point became too expensive to keep up with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:R17 on spinning disk faster than PostgreSQL on SSD by matthewnourse on Monday August 15, 2011 @11:25PM (#2889712)

I agree that it would be disingenuous to base "faster" on load+index+query. I'm basing it on the query times alone. I would like very much to base it on load+index+query 'cause then I could have said "faster than MySQL and PostgreSQL" :) [and probably many systems, since r17 is built specifically for zero indexing overhead].

R17 is _only_ for analytics & warehousing, it doesn't do transactions at all. So in that sense this comparison is unfair, which is why next up I want to do the same comparison with Hadoop.

Thanks for taking a closer look for your warehouse! Please contact me directly or comment somewhere if you'd like any help from me.

[ Parent | on HN ]