That's easy to answer, instead of using a relational database or even PostgreSQL's JSON data store, it's using MongoDB. I hate MongoDB but for tests like these where there's absolutely no writes what so ever, Mongo is going to fly. Hence, I read this as comparing MongoDB read performance to PostgreSQL, MySQL or SQL Server perf (or any of the other DB that are listed.)
That's why benchmarks like these have to be scrutinized. I like looking them over but in reality, they're not Apples to Apples.
If each framework use different DB, then all results with DB queries are useless (for me). Very frustrating.
Really, any framework with Redis will have HUGE allowance
Actually, not really. We checked the code to ensure that there was no gaming the system and it definitely APPEARS to be making separate database queries as we require in our rules. In fact, we had this same question in round 9 and had a number of people audit it. We cannot explain it other than it might be pretty darn fast.
A better requirement would be to define some minimum level of durability, and some minimal level of freshness in the face of concurrent modifications.
Frankly, who cares if a caching driver avoids some database queries entirely if it still provides the same level of durability and freshness guarantees? If mongo+redis are OK, what's wrong with a plain hashtable?
