On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 15:56, Matt Sergeant <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:23:30 -0400, Matt Sergeant wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:32:13 +0000, Justin Mason wrote: >>> >> > http://anyall.org/blog/2009/04/performance-comparison-keyvalue-stores-for-language-model-counts/ >>> >>> highlight: a Tokyo Cabinet hashtable performed at 1400 ops/sec compared to >>> BerkeleyDB's 340 (via python bindings), over 4 times faster. There's been >>> a lot of good press about it.... possibly a candidate for a future plugin? >> >> The times look really bizarre to me. >> >> An in memory store can only do 2700 "tweets/sec" (whatever that >> means)??? That's INCREDIBLY low. >> >> I suspect BerkelyDB there is at about as fast as you might get without >> turning off fsync to disk. Tokyo Cabinet is probably faster because it >> doesn't fsync. I imagine that's about all there is to it. >> >> Would love to be proven wrong though. > > Ah, Tokyo Cabinet is just the successor to QDBM. I wrote a CPAN module > for that a while back :) > > I seem to recall I had some corruption issues with it under high load. > But perhaps Tokyo Cabinet is better in that regard.
it's been receiving good reviews on the reliability/performance side recently -- http://randomfoo.net/2009/04/20/some-notes-on-distributed-key-stores . so fingers crossed. --j.
