With the wal redis runs with perfectly reasonable performance. Of course you're not going to have the performance of an in-memory only DB if you're flushing to disk on every write.

There's no vacuuming, there's no need for indexing. You can see the time complexity of most operations. Key-value operations are mostly O(1). You'll never get that kind of performance with other databases because they intentionally don't give you that granularity.

The metadata of the filesystem isn't the performance bottleneck in most cases.

> With the wal redis runs with perfectly reasonable performance. Of course you're not going to have the performance of an in-memory only DB if you're flushing to disk on every write.

But that's not what gets benchmarked against.

> You'll never get that kind of performance with other databases because they intentionally don't give you that granularity.

Okay but you also won't get horizontal scaling while maintaining consistency in Redis.

> The metadata of the filesystem isn't the performance bottleneck in most cases.

Okay, but they do show that other metadata stores are 2-4x slower than Redis, so it would be great to see whole-system benchmarks that use those.