131–140 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for others, but at least for me the main attraction of CockroachDB is getting foolproof HA straight out of the box. That is something I think anyone can appreciate regardless of their dataset size. Note that I haven't actually ran CockroachDB yet, so I can't confirm if it really delivers on that promise, but I'm hopeful.
What is HA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for others, but at least for me the main attraction of CockroachDB is getting foolproof HA straight out of the box. That is something I think anyone can appreciate regardless of their dataset size. Note that I haven't actually ran CockroachDB yet, so I can't confirm if it really delivers on that promise, but I'm hopeful.
What is HA?
Pardon the nature of my question, but I'm really interested in what your experience has been so far building a database with Go? Has its runtime (the GC for example) posed any issues for you so far? Looking at other RDBMS's, languages with manual memory management like C or C++ seems to be the go-to choice, so what were the reasons you chose Go? I'm quite frankly amazed that Go's runtime is able to support a database…
(Cockroach Labs co-founder) I gave a talk on exactly this subject at the ACM Applicative conference last year: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/community/tech-talks/challenge... Overall we've been happy with the choice. The GC is sometimes a performance issue, but it's manageable (and Go gives you better tools to limit the cost of GC than many other garbage-collected languages)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[Cockroach Labs engineer here.] Yes, if very low-latency (i.e., P99 latency sub-5ms) reads and writes are critical to your application, CockroachDB should not be your first choice. That said, one of the primary motivations for CockroachDB is that most existing systems don't handle eventual consistency well. In our experience, most developers will eventually write code that assumes a consistent database, either accide…
> P99 latency sub-5ms Has the team cooked up any latency benchmarks for different configurations? E.g. same-rack, same-zone, multi-zone, multi-region?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for others, but at least for me the main attraction of CockroachDB is getting foolproof HA straight out of the box. That is something I think anyone can appreciate regardless of their dataset size. Note that I haven't actually ran CockroachDB yet, so I can't confirm if it really delivers on that promise, but I'm hopeful.
What is HA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're thinking of somewhere else. The up/down votes are a way of agreeing or disagreeing without cluttering up the comments with a bunch of "me toos" or "nuhuhhs"
I'm certain that I'm not thinking of somewhere else. I'm completely open to the possibility that I just remember it wrong, but I'm sure that it was HN that I was thinking of, and not another site.
It probably scales but how is the performance? If I need to load a couple billion rows and do a dozen joins in some analytics, is that one machine, a dozen, or 100? Is it more for web apps, analytics, or what? When would I consider switching from e.g. Postgres to CockroachDB?
[Cockroach Labs engineer here] For just a couple billion rows and a dozen joins, a single node will suffice (with the caveat that you really want at least 3 nodes because CockroachDB is built for replication and fault-tolerance and you're not getting that with a single node cluster), but you'll get linear speedup as you add more machines. Your performance on a single node should be on the same order of magnitude as d…
I always see companies making the claim of linear speedup with more nodes but surely that can't be the case if the nodes are geographically disjointed over anything less than gigabit links? Perhaps linear speedup with more nodes is only possible over high speed connections? How high is that exactly?
Congratulations to the team on the release! Introducing this kind of database is no easy task - thank you and great job, keep up the good work!
I think the name "Cockroach" was a really poor decision from a marketing standpoint. The team intended to convey durability, since cockroaches can live through anything. But when I think of a cockroach, I think, gross, disgusting, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for others, but at least for me the main attraction of CockroachDB is getting foolproof HA straight out of the box. That is something I think anyone can appreciate regardless of their dataset size. Note that I haven't actually ran CockroachDB yet, so I can't confirm if it really delivers on that promise, but I'm hopeful.
What is HA?