Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think it's true to claim that TPC-C is obsolete and subsumed by TPC-E. They are both different OLTP benchmarks, with different characteristics. TPC-C is more write heavy, TPC-E is far more read heavy. It's true that TPC-E is newer, but doesn't deprecate TPC-C (the way TPC-A, for instance, is now deprecated).

We chose TPC-C because it's far more understood than TPC-E in 2018. We wanted to provide understandable benchmarks that can be put into context with other databases. Other databases report TPC-C numbers, so we choose to do so as well.




It seems not used much anymore. Follow that link (http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?print=false...) and sort by either score, or price performance. The vast majority of top results are a decade old or more. I couldnt find anything less than 5 years old without going to second/third pages.

And the top results are usually crazy high number of cores clusters. The Sun example was over 1700 cores.


The problem is that I think it costs money and red tape to submit results and vendors run their own, and you kinda have to take their word on it or reproduce them yourself.


That makes sense. Probably TPC-C died after Oracle basically killed off Sybase and Informix. No more well funded competition to keep up the pace. And no multitude of RISC vendors trying to fend off Linux/X86.

The open source databases didn't play that game, so TPC-C became irrelevant.

Too bad there isn't a good way to directly compare the healthy survivors.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: