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

Great, thanks for the in-depth reply. Just saw it now. I agree that TPC-C is much harder than flexasynch, which is just a KV benchmark. Here's a different benchmark. NDB got around 8m ops/sec on 8 datanodes when performing 1.2m HDFS ops/sec in https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast17/technical-sessions/... . That is not a KV workload. It is, in fact, a very mixed workload with every transaction being a cross-partition transaction, lots of batched PK ops, lots of partition-pruned index scans. Transactions containing lots of ops. Full-table scans. Index scans. And get this, it's open-source. Research has, of course, advanced since NDB, but nothing open-source still comes close to it for some (sometimes complex) OLTP workloads - anything subscriber oriented. Not TPC-C workloads, they suck on NDB.

I'd never heard of MICA, will read up on it. Calvin, though, is extremely limited. They tried to build CalvinFS on top of Calvin, but it didn't work. Subtree ops didn't scale (at all), as the DB wasn't flexible enough. Features and maturity sometimes matter, and NDB has both.




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

Search: