Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

lmdb #41

Open
utterances-bot opened this issue Dec 9, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

lmdb #41

utterances-bot opened this issue Dec 9, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@utterances-bot
Copy link

lmdb

https://40ants.com/lisp-project-of-the-day/2020/10/0201-lmdb.html

Copy link

melisgl commented Dec 9, 2020

Fernando recently merged a large cleanup patch from me (and there is another one coming). I think you used an older version. More importantly, LMDB has a couple of things going for it:

  • millions of reads per second
  • transactions that span multiple keys, which is often missing from nosql dbs

It's not immediately obvious, but being blazing fast at reading allows one to map data to the db in a fairly direct manner, while multi-key transactions are absolutely necessary unless eventual consistency is somehow sufficient.

As to the benchmarks, Badger seems to be a faster at random writes and slower at reads. Although I'm not sure how much database vendors should be trusted to benchmark their own.

Also, LMDB is a good fit for an application when nosql is: when there are no ad-hoc queries and it is feasible to manage consistency (e.g. foreign keys constraints) by hand.

@svetlyak40wt
Copy link
Member

Yess, probably it was older version.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants