|
|
|
|
|
by midom
5106 days ago
|
|
No, that is not the highest praise you can get from me. It definitely is very interesting technology, and what it does well, it does really well - though I didn't get to benchmark parallel performance, as I had work to do :-) I wouldn't have written that post the way it is if your marketing would be honest and with lots of actual technical merit. There're plenty other companies in the community that have invested much more into decent technical communication. I agree that in some cases pure durability isn't needed and the best-effort with enforced maximum slippage is good enough, but still, pure durability implementation is extremely naive, and I can show that it hits benchmarks really badly :-) Your optimizer does not optimize very simple things, and though you can claim that in-memory performance hides that, still, it is nowhere close a drop-in replacement of any kind. I understand what you've done from technology perspective, and it is an interesting approach (albeit I'm not trying to evaluate applicability). I just cannot approve the way you did initial publicity - unfair comparisons are unfair comparisons, and if you're using them that way, I can come up with my unfair comparison :) |
|