In-memory key-value store in C, Go and Python

Re:In-memory key-value store in C, Go and Python by spullara on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @03:16AM (#3733460)

Are we seriously discussing a benchmark that only runs 1000 operations? I don't even understand how it could take 20s to complete in any language on the server side and be correct code. Implement the Redis protocol and use the included redis-benchmark to test your server. On a decent Mac you should be able to hit 500k/s with pipelining and 25k/s without it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In-memory key-value store in C, Go and Python by axbx on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @03:42AM (#3733501)

I immediately disregard anyone that doesn't show their benchmarks running for any amount of time that would reasonably be used in production.

I have absolutely no problem with letting my stuff fire requests off on 12+ core machines for hours or days on end. And then repeat it. And again.

Production means 24/7 and when I read your less than an hour benchmark on ANY test - well, that's just a not right.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In-memory key-value store in C, Go and Python by sausagefeet on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @08:46AM (#3734086)

Totally, you just don't see some things after a long time. I haven't read the code but people mentioned the author is using malloc in a lot of places, you wont' see ill effects from memory fragmentation with a quick benchmark, it could take hours or days to see how large of holes you have in your memory space.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In-memory key-value store in C, Go and Python by ootachi on Wednesday March 21, 2012 @12:09PM (#3734999)

And in Go, they aren't running long enough to see the GC kick in. I suspect the overhead of GC will be significant without tuning.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In-memory key-value store in C, Go and Python by caf on Thursday March 22, 2012 @12:10AM (#3738336)

The slowness actually appears to be down to his client implementation - see the comment by Clément Stenac on the original post.

[ Parent | on HN ]