If that's the case, then this would be a much smaller improvement for DB's that can be stored entirely in-memory or on SSD, right?
I think that most small db's are mostly in memory, and most large ones will be on SSD soon, so do you think that this will have a smaller impact on those use cases?
For really large databases, SSDs aren't cost effective (think multi-terabyte). For the smaller sized databases, most will prefer a hybrid SSD-RAID solution(like Sun's storage appliances) for cost again.
Toku is targeting the niche of people who 1. Don't give a damm about ACID. 2. Can't afford hybrid SSD solutions.
Toku's indexing technology would be worthwhile at the higher end also, and people with multi-terabytes of information at that end usually use a database as a persistence backend rather than a ACID RDBMS. (think FACEBOOK or your-next-large-startup). Those with a need for ACID, are already running Oracle (which lacks this technology AFAIK). I sense an Oracle-buy-me exit strategy.
I think that most small db's are mostly in memory, and most large ones will be on SSD soon, so do you think that this will have a smaller impact on those use cases?