Re:Seeking new test ideas for Framework Benchmarks Round 4+
by coolsunglasses on Friday April 12, 2013 @12:50PM
(#5539619)
That's a pretty nonsense sentiment. How can a database be "faster" than a language?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Seeking new test ideas for Framework Benchmarks Round 4+
by spullara on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:05PM
(#5539719)
For example, going to the database and retrieving the data uses less CPU and time than deserializing the data into an object into Ruby. That is the sense I am talking about. The bottleneck becomes the code talking to the database rather than the database itself.
Re:Seeking new test ideas for Framework Benchmarks Round 4+
by coolsunglasses on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:13PM
(#5539773)
That's...that's not how it works. I was talking about the scalability of the database as that's a brick wall you hit long before anything else. You can always fire up more rails workers, scaling persistence is a PITA.
Are you intentionally misunderstanding me in order to make a strange and irrelevant point?
Re:Seeking new test ideas for Framework Benchmarks Round 4+
by spullara on Friday April 12, 2013 @04:49PM
(#5540911)
I'm not making a pure scalability argument. Your solution of scaling the rails tier still suffers from far higher latency thus making choice of language/VM relevant. Rails is very, very slow — even if you cache everything behind it. So yes, you can scale it up, but it is at least 10x more expensive to do so.