Wow thank you for the great details. It is very helpful.
We may shoot to try out some benchmarks in the next few weeks. I'll report
back if we find anything notable.
Thanks again!
On Nov 4, 2018 12:53, "Matthias J. Sax" wrote:
Thanks for the details.
Don't think there is a answer with
Thanks for the details.
Don't think there is a answer with numbers. You would need to benchmark
this yourself. However, some details:
- If you query a local store using a key-lookup (ie, point query) is
should be sub-millisecond latency for a high percentile. The read is
either served from the
Hi Matthias.
My apologies for my ambiguous descriptions. I responded in-line to your
questions below. Thank you for taking the time to understand my question.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:28 PM Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> >> At a high level, KTables provide a capability to query for data.
>
> Can you
>> At a high level, KTables provide a capability to query for data.
Can you elaborate? Do you refer to "Interactive Queries" feature?
>> And I imagine latency/throughout of KTable queries depend on the number of
>> consumers the query would have to touch to complete.
Similar here. I am not
Thank you for the clarification. I understand they are fundamentally
different underneath than a relational database, and may not be fair to
compare directly.
But how about benchmarks that aren't a comparison from other databases?
At a high level, KTables provide a capability to query for data.
I am not aware if benchmarks, but want to point out, that KTables work
somewhat different to relational database system. Thus, you might want
to evaluate not base on performance, but on the semantics KTable provide.
Recall, that Kafka Streams is a stream processing library while a
database system
I was wonderinf if anyone had or knew of benchmark tests for KTable or
GlobalKTable queries/joins, as compared to alternatives such as distributed
databases.
