51–60 of 187 posts
Before clicking the comments link, I always know what to expect in HN comment section for a CDB post announcing their latest milestone or feature: A lot of congrats and excitement, questions about who uses it in a production environment, very specific use-case questions, and of course the name. Weird how predictable the response to one company/tech always is.
came here to comment on the name.
Great stuff. I appreciated being educated about TPC-C, and the whole spirit of not focusing on vanity benchmarks!
Same here, but in educating myself more I found that TPC-C seems to be a somewhat obsolete metric compared to TPC-E (see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9246939/what-is-the-diff... ). Why use the old one here? edit: Looking into it even further, I agree with the co-author's response here that TPC-C is still an appropriate metric. TPC-E is different and newer but still not as widely used.
We chose TPC-C because it's far more understood than TPC-E in 2018. We wanted to provide understandable benchmarks that can be put into context with other databases. Other databases report TPC-C numbers, so we choose to do so as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We use Citus and Memsql (big data analytics use cases). How does Cockroach handle joins and other OLAP style queries?
You're not going to get better performance for OLAP than MemSQL's columnstore and in-memory rowstore for reference tables to join. Citus is great if you want the Postgres interface but is still using standard rowstore tables. CockroachDB is similar with rowstore performance but with added distributed consensus overhead. They are both much better for OLTP and sharding. CockroachDB also provides easy high-availability…
I will not use this product based on it's name alone, it give me jeepers. Petty? Damn straight it's petty. Doesn't make it less real though.
I can't see serious engineers working on a company named "Cockroach".
How is this meaningful without detailed setup description? http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?print=false... Looking at this list of results one wonders what those results actually mean?
The Oracle on SPARC cluster (at the top, 2010) performs 30.2M qualified tx/min vs the 16K tx/min in this blog post. The Oracle cluster also costs $30M, which is clearly higher than the Cockroach cluster's cost.
That said, the TPC-C benchmark is new to me. Happy to update this comment if I'm misreading the numbers.
(Edited to incorporate the reply below.)
How is this meaningful without detailed setup description? http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?print=false... Looking at this list of results one wonders what those results actually mean?
I think you can still drive some insights. I clicked on the TPC-C results you shared and read their executive summaries. The Oracle on SPARC cluster (at the top, 2010) performs 30.2M qualified tx/min vs the 16K tx/min in this blog post. The Oracle cluster also costs $30M, which is clearly higher than the Cockroach cluster's cost. That said, the TPC-C benchmark is new to me. Happy to update this comment if I'm misread…
We're focusing today on our improvements over CockroachDB 1.1, using a small-ish cluster. We'll be showing some more scalability with larger clusters in the coming weeks. If you've found CockroachDB performance slow in the past, you will be pleasantly surprised with this release!