TFA contextualizes this better:
> This gets even worse when you consider the problem of hot rows, where many transactions often need to touch the same set of “house accounts”.
I think this is very clear, I don't know why you're saying that tigerbeetle is trying to make a generic claim about general workloads
The comment you're replying to explicitly states that this isn't true for general workloads
> Without much sweat for general purpose workloads.
But writing that traditional SQL databases cannot go above these "100-1000 TPS" numbers due to Amdahl's law is going to raise some eyebrows.
I don't think that's controversial. Amdahl's law applies to all software. Its not a peculiar feature of SQL databases. The comment is well-contextualized, in my view, but reasonable minds may disagree.
In fact large real world systems are not limited to 100-1000 TPS, or even 10 kTPS as the calculator tries to suggest. That's not because Amdahl's law is wrong, the numbers you're plugging in are just wildly off, so the conclusions are equally nonsensical.
There might be some specific workloads where you saw those numbers, and your DB might be a good fit for this particular niche, but you shouldn't misrepresent general purpose workloads to try to prop up your DB. Claiming that SQL databases are limited to "100-1000 TPS" is unserious, it is not conductive to your cause.