Hello! That's exactly the reason why we would prefer to choose Ignite over RocksDB. Otherwise, we will have to implement scalability by ourselves and, believe me, that's not something we would like to do.
We also know they're not directly comparable. We would agree to pay the price for scalability with slightly worse performance but, based on our tests, it's too big. For instance: - Single node cluster in the same host as the application (no communication over the wire, trying to get closer to an embedded database) - A single user (no multiple users working either on the application or the database) A transactional commit with 1.8M keys and 1GB in size takes 97 seconds with NO persistence, and this time is doubled if persistence is enabled. RocksDB takes around 100 seconds to perform a transaction with 4M keys and 4GB in size, persistence included. As you can see, there is a huge difference. On the other hand, limitations like the ones we have found in one month of research: - PutAll performance in transactional cache <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14076> - Not asynchronous tcp connection <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13997> - The maximum transaction size of 1GB we are discussing in this thread don't really help to go for Ignite, at least in our kind of project. But we would still like to do more tests to be 100% sure about our decision, that's why I'd like to ask you: - Should I get a better performance in a multi-node cluster? Read/Write/Both? - Should I do the tests in a different way? Thanks in advance! -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
