Message-ID: <4FF64346.9020507@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:45:42 -0400
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111120 Icedove/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MemSQL the "world's fastest database"?
References: 
 <CAFwQ8rcpbZsR3Ndk8GoVsqGhc8y+M8siBmMDN1X=mom4uAO8ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FE8582F0200002500048AAD@gw.wicourts.gov>	<4FEFCFA3.50305@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<CAOR=d=0PMMFEsv1rkotV1yQnYhZ2k3CLSGdeJuYEPT7T7zuJAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOR=d=0PMMFEsv1rkotV1yQnYhZ2k3CLSGdeJuYEPT7T7zuJAg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 07/01/2012 01:00 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Considering I can build a pgsql 8.4 machine with 256G RAM and 64
> Opteron cores and a handful of SSDs or HW RAID that can do REAL 7k to
> 8k RW TPS right now for well under $10k, 20k TPS on an in memory
> database isn't all that impressive.

Again, their TPS numbers are useless without a contest of how big each 
transaction is, and we don't know.  I can take MemSQL seriously when 
there's a press release describing how to replicate their benchmark 
independently.  Then it's useful to look at the absolute number.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com