And, given the discussion we've had so far, you where totally right. It has been a good jumping off point for talking about it ;-)
Rob On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Nathaniel Barnes wrote: > I really should have prefaced this with my personal schtick about benchmarks. > Benchmarks divorced of context are good only as a point of interest. A > starting off point for more meaningful benchmarks. I wouldn't pick a > technology based off of this, unless the project was just to throw hashes at > a database and then pull them back out without using them for anything. I > just thought it was an entertaining exercise in between more productive > matters :P > > The table was running in memory, though it was still logging. > > Given that the pg gem seems to be largely a wrapper for c extensions to > postgres' drivers, I probably should have used hiredis. Honestly didn't think > about. Thanks for the tip :) > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:00:14 PM UTC-7, Matt Aimonetti wrote: > You should also really use hiredis, it will make a huge performance > difference. The other thing to keep in mind is that with redis, you might > want to pipeline multiple writes writes at once. > Finally, Postgres has to parse the SQL query which is more expensive than > reading the binary protocol used by Redis. > > But, in all honestly, I wouldn't pick a technology simply based on these kind > of benchmarks ;) > > - Matt > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Guyren Howe wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 0:02 , Nathaniel Barnes wrote: > > > So after Guy's talk introduced me to postgres' hstore (thanks for that > > btw), I was curious to see what the performance difference between it and > > redis would be in serializing objects. A couple of others at the meeting > > expressed some interest in it and I finally got some spare time to throw > > together a script to get some results. So with that in mind, here's the > > quick script I wrote, and the results it generated. > > > > https://gist.github.com/3001890 > > > > Not sure what's with that massive spike with selects from postgres at > > 10,000 selects. I figure most likely my macbook just ran out of memory or > > some such. I should likely try this again in an EC2 instance for giggles. > > That being said, the base key/value store is clearly faster, which was > > largely expected since it doesn't have to deal with any of the normal > > relational overhead. However that also means you don't get all that > > delicious relational overhead. > > > > Just thought I'd share with everyone :) > > This is great, thanks! > > The obvious question is whether Postgres was configured to work similarly to > Redis. That would mostly mean using an unlogged table in a RAM disk. > > -- > SD Ruby mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby > > > -- > SD Ruby mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby -- SD Ruby mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby
