Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

InfiniSQL

infinisql.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: InfiniSQL

#21

Post by diwu1989 »

jacob019 wrote: post #19
mtravis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On backlog to fix. But InfiniSQL is for hackers and early adopters at this stage. The SQL support is documented ( http://www.infinisql.org/docs/index/ )

Awesome project and a killer concept. No one has been able to really solve relational database scalability yet. I'll have to study the implementation. I was just talking with some friends a few weeks ago about this problem and we concluded that if someone came up with a distributed relational database with decent scalable performance they would be very successful indeed. Will try it out and follow the progress. Hope…

Have you tried Vertica? One of the big data project my team did used more than 200 servers in a single Vertica cluster. At the enterprise OEM level, the pricing is actually really affordable. You should try out Vertica Community Edition, the free 3 node version.

Re: InfiniSQL

#22

Post by arnorhs »

mtravis wrote: post #17
jacob019 wrote: post #15

I'm supposed to use the perl api for user and schema management? Perl holds a special place in my heart, but I'm not too excited about managing my database with it. How about an interactive console? I'm currently using MySQL, how similar is the SQL syntax?

On backlog to fix. But InfiniSQL is for hackers and early adopters at this stage. The SQL support is documented ( http://www.infinisql.org/docs/index/ )

Did you mean to link to http://www.infinisql.org/docs/index ? I was getting an error on /docs/

Re: InfiniSQL

#23

Post by mtravis »

diwu1989 wrote: post #21
jacob019 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome project and a killer concept. No one has been able to really solve relational database scalability yet. I'll have to study the implementation. I was just talking with some friends a few weeks ago about this problem and we concluded that if someone came up with a distributed relational database with decent scalable performance they would be very successful indeed. Will try it out and follow the progress. Hope…

Have you tried Vertica? One of the big data project my team did used more than 200 servers in a single Vertica cluster. At the enterprise OEM level, the pricing is actually really affordable. You should try out Vertica Community Edition, the free 3 node version.

Vertica's a data warehouse. InfiniSQL is geared for OLTP. --------- Thanks, jacob019. Please fork/follow on github, twitter if you're into that, etc.

Re: InfiniSQL

#24

Post by jfim »

wimpycofounder wrote: post #10

So...uh...how does it work? Anyone know if there is an architecture overview somewhere? And why there isn't a link to it on the damn front page?

From their documentation:

> InfiniSQL currently is an in memory database. This means that all records are stored in system memory, and not written to disk. This provides very high performance--but it also means that InfiniSQL currently lacks the property of Durability. If the power goes out, all data is gone. This limitation is temporary.

They do mention that they'll implement persistence, but that's likely to lower performance, as you're limited to how fast the write ahead log can be written, even if updates to on-disk structures are batched.

They also mention:

> No sharding is necessary with InfiniSQL: it partitions data automatically across available hardware. Connect to any node, and all of the data is accessible.

I haven't looked at how joins are done across large tables that span over multiple nodes (or if it's even supported), but that's not likely to be fast either, for obvious reasons.

Re: InfiniSQL

#25

Post by mtravis »

arnorhs wrote: post #22
mtravis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On backlog to fix. But InfiniSQL is for hackers and early adopters at this stage. The SQL support is documented ( http://www.infinisql.org/docs/index/ )

Did you mean to link to http://www.infinisql.org/docs/index ? I was getting an error on /docs/

Thanks, edited.

Re: InfiniSQL

#26

Post by mtravis »

jfim wrote: post #24
wimpycofounder wrote: post #10

So...uh...how does it work? Anyone know if there is an architecture overview somewhere? And why there isn't a link to it on the damn front page?

From their documentation: > InfiniSQL currently is an in memory database. This means that all records are stored in system memory, and not written to disk. This provides very high performance--but it also means that InfiniSQL currently lacks the property of Durability. If the power goes out, all data is gone. This limitation is temporary. They do mention that they'll implement persistence, but that's likely to lower…

1) persistence: battery-backed UPS and synchronous replication. No WAL anywhere. I'm thinking about ways to do disk-based storage without synchronous IO, to provide decent performance with higher storage capacity

2) no joins supported yet. However, the benchmark that I performed (on the blog) involves 3 updates across random nodes. I designed InfiniSQL specifically to perform multi-node transactions very well, because that's the Achilles' heel of every other distributed OLTP system. I plan to implement joins, but expect them to perform decently for the workload you describe.

Re: InfiniSQL

#28

Post by tintor »

mtravis wrote: post #12

A few things (I'm the author of InfiniSQL) 1) I include keystore-like stored procedures in the source. They do get/set with integer key and string val. I haven't done thorough benchmarking, but I expect them to outperform the other benchmark I've published, which is quite a bit more complex workload 2) (camus2) agreed, nothing ever dies in IT. But roll back the clock a few years. How much noSQL would come into exisen…

Regarding MemSQL: - we have just released v2.5 with full support for JSON and online ALTER TABLE across cluster - MemSQL performs great on both OLAP and OLTP - it scales well: we have several hundred node cluster in production at Zynga - license cost for startups is $1

Re: InfiniSQL

#29

Post by mtravis »

glibgil wrote: post #27

It uses 2pc so it won't really scale.

I think you mean 2PL.

It does really scale, check out the benchmark report on the blog. http://www.infinisql.org/blog/2013/1112/benchmarking-infinis...

For deadlock-prone workloads, it will likely not be as good, admittedly.

I'm considering a variation on MVCC that gets around the single transactionid bottleneck, but the currently implementation is based on 2PL. http://www.infinisql.org/docs/overview/#ftn.idp37098256

For concurrency management algorithms, there are no good ones. Only those that are less bad than others in some cases.

Re: InfiniSQL

#30

Post by mtravis »

tintor wrote: post #28
mtravis wrote: post #12

A few things (I'm the author of InfiniSQL) 1) I include keystore-like stored procedures in the source. They do get/set with integer key and string val. I haven't done thorough benchmarking, but I expect them to outperform the other benchmark I've published, which is quite a bit more complex workload 2) (camus2) agreed, nothing ever dies in IT. But roll back the clock a few years. How much noSQL would come into exisen…

Regarding MemSQL: - we have just released v2.5 with full support for JSON and online ALTER TABLE across cluster - MemSQL performs great on both OLAP and OLTP - it scales well: we have several hundred node cluster in production at Zynga - license cost for startups is $1

Congratulations!

Do you have benchmark reports?

Post reply on HN