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

Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

dizzy.zone

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 311 posts

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#301

Post by lomase »

simonw wrote: post #291
lomase wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could not replace good books with Intenert and you can't replace good books with a any LLM. You can replace books with your own time and research. Again making statements that are just not true. Typical HN behavior.

I don't appreciate how you accuse me of "making statements that are just not true" without providing a solid argument (as opposed to your own opinion) as to why what I'm saying isn't true.

You stated that an LLM can replace a book.

As far as I know in the field of logic the one making a statement, in this case you, is the one who has to prove it.

But in this case you make a statemen and then ask ME to prove it wrong? Makes zero fucking sense.

As much as you don't apreciate it, that is how debate and logic works.

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#302

Post by simonw »

lomase wrote: post #301
simonw wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't appreciate how you accuse me of "making statements that are just not true" without providing a solid argument (as opposed to your own opinion) as to why what I'm saying isn't true.

You stated that an LLM can replace a book. As far as I know in the field of logic the one making a statement, in this case you, is the one who has to prove it. But in this case you make a statemen and then ask ME to prove it wrong? Makes zero fucking sense. As much as you don't apreciate it, that is how debate and logic works.

The idea that an LLM can replace the role of a book doesn't seem like it should even be controversial to me.

You buy a non-fiction book to learn something, or to act as a reference.

An LLM provides an alternative mechanism for learning that thing, or looking up those reference points.

What am I missing here?

Do you think a search engine could replace a book?

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#303

Post by lomase »

simonw wrote: post #302
lomase wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You stated that an LLM can replace a book. As far as I know in the field of logic the one making a statement, in this case you, is the one who has to prove it. But in this case you make a statemen and then ask ME to prove it wrong? Makes zero fucking sense. As much as you don't apreciate it, that is how debate and logic works.

The idea that an LLM can replace the role of a book doesn't seem like it should even be controversial to me. You buy a non-fiction book to learn something, or to act as a reference. An LLM provides an alternative mechanism for learning that thing, or looking up those reference points. What am I missing here? Do you think a search engine could replace a book?

So you are not only stating than a LLM can replace a book. Directly you are saying that it is an axiom.

It is so self evident true that you don't even need to reason about it.

That LLMs can replace a book is a fundamental truth of the universe like the euclid postulates or like 1=1.

Well then there is no way to continue the conversation, because by definition axioms can't be false.

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#304

Post by simonw »

lomase wrote: post #303
simonw wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that an LLM can replace the role of a book doesn't seem like it should even be controversial to me. You buy a non-fiction book to learn something, or to act as a reference. An LLM provides an alternative mechanism for learning that thing, or looking up those reference points. What am I missing here? Do you think a search engine could replace a book?

So you are not only stating than a LLM can replace a book. Directly you are saying that it is an axiom. It is so self evident true that you don't even need to reason about it. That LLMs can replace a book is a fundamental truth of the universe like the euclid postulates or like 1=1. Well then there is no way to continue the conversation, because by definition axioms can't be false.

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but you'll have to make a concrete argument rather than just critiquing the way I'm discussing this.

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#305

Post by onraglanroad »

igneo676 wrote: post #258
perrygeo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default shared memory is 128MiB, not even 1% of typical machines today. A benchmark run with these settings is effectively crippling your hardware by making sure 99% of your available memory is ignored by postgres. It's an invalid benchmark, unless redis is similarly crippled.

> If the defaults are fine for a use case then unless I want to tune it for personal interest it’s either a poor use of my fun time or a poor use of my clients funds. It doesn't matter if you've crippled the benchmark if the performance of both options still exceeds your expectations. Not all of us are trying eek out every drop of performance And, well, if you are then you can ignore the entire post because Redis off…

> Not all of us are trying eek out every drop of performance

You probably mean "eke out". Unless the performance is particularly scary :)

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#306

Post by 12345hn6789 »

lomase wrote: post #298
simonw wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to believe my own experience on this one.

I am going to wait until Chat GPT 8 solves quantum physics like the ex ceo of this site has stated.

Good thing there exists no middle ground between solving quantum physics and optimizing a SQL statement.

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#308

Post by spixy »

perrygeo wrote: post #209
IanCal wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. They found that Postgres, without tuning, was easily fast enough on low level hardware and would come with the benefit of not deploying another service. Additionally tuning it isn’t really relevant. If the defaults are fine for a use case then unless I want to tune it for personal interest it’s either a poor use of my fun time or a poor use of my clients funds.

The default shared memory is 128MiB, not even 1% of typical machines today. A benchmark run with these settings is effectively crippling your hardware by making sure 99% of your available memory is ignored by postgres. It's an invalid benchmark, unless redis is similarly crippled.

wow, default 128MiB sounds so stupid

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#309

Post by jdc0589 »

the redis average latencies are pretty surprisingly high to me, but can probably be explained by your lab setup/hardware.

1. im surprised the latencies for redis are as high as they are. single key lookup operator is very commonly Like I said its probably just hardware though. Ive written a handful of redis backed services where the read APIs have a p99 10ms. In those instances the api infra wasn't anything too special, but it was a decent redis setup (elasticache of some middling tier).

Re: Redis is fast – I'll cache in Postgres

#310

Post by kapone »

lomase wrote: post #255
themgt wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a sort of anti-everything attitude that gets boring and lazy. Redis is about the simplest thing possible to deploy. This wasn't about "a redis cluster with elastisearch using an LLM" it was just Redis. I sometimes read this stuff like people explaining how they replaced their spoon and fork with a spork and measured only a 50% decrease in food eating performance. And have you heard of the people with a $…

There is this cv-driven-development when you have to use Redis, Kafka, Mongo, Rabbit, Docker, AWS, job schelduers, Microservices, and so on. The less dependencies my project has the better. If it is not needed why use it?

After quite a few years of being an employee (and the whole CV driven crap), I’m now in entrepreneur mode, stealth for now (that’s relatively easy, because I’m bootstrapping and funding this with my own money, no investors), and I made an executive decision to (forcibly) think many times, before adopting any “cloudy” thing.

Hardware…is cheap, and bare metal performance outweighs anything cloudy by multiples of magnitudes. If I have to invest money into something, I’d rather invest that in bare metal tooling, than paying for a managed service, that’s just a wrapper around tooling. E.g RDS, EC2, Fargate… or their equivalents across other CSPs.

I can run a Postgres cluster on bare metal, that will obliterate anything cloudy, and cost less than a 3rd if not less. Is it easy? No. But that’s where the investment comes in. A few good Infra resources can do magic, and yes, I hope to be large enough that these labor costs will be way less than a cloud bill.

Post reply on HN