"600 ns" then really means "1.6M QPS of throughput," which is a good number but is well within the capabilities of many similar offerings (including several databases that are truly persistent). It also says nothing about your latency. If you want to say you are 2-6x faster than Redis, you are going to have to compare that number to Redis's throughput.
Single Operation Performance
Redis Single Operations
SET: 273,672.69 requests per second (p50=0.095 ms)
GET: 278,164.12 requests per second (p50=0.095 ms)
HPKV Single Operations
INSERT: 1,082,578.12 operations per second
GET: 1,728,939.43 operations per second
DELETE: 935,846.09 operations per second
Batch Operation Performance
Redis Batch Operations
SET: 2,439,024.50 requests per second (p50=0.263 ms)
GET: 2,932,551.50 requests per second (p50=0.223 ms)
HPKV Batch Operations
INSERT: 6,125,538.03 operations per second
GET: 8,273,300.27 operations per second
DELETE: 5,705,816.00 operations per second
The latency of 600ns as I mentioned is a local vectored interface call and not over the network. the is not how we compared the system with Redis. the above numbers are using our RIOC API over the network, in which HPKV behaves like a server similar to a Redis server.
The numbers above are compared with Redis in-memory and HPKV is still 2-6x faster. even if you assume HPKV as just an in-memory KV store with no persistence.
By the way, this set of numbers also makes you look stupid, and you should consider redoing those measurements. No disk out there has less than 10 microseconds of write latency, and the ones in the cloud are closer to 50 us. Citing 2 micros here makes your 600 ns number also look 10x too optimistic.
I would suggest taking this whole thread as less of an opportunity to do marketing "damage control" and more of an opportunity to get honest feedback about your engineering and measurement practices. From the outside, they don't look good.