Comment by jorangreef
3 months ago
Joran from TigerBeetle!
> For processing transactions one-by-one individually
If you're artificially restricting the load going into TigerBeetle, by sending transactions in one-by-one individually, then I think predictable latency (and not TPS) would be a better metric.
For example, TB's multi-region/multi-AZ fault-tolerance will work around gray failure (fail slow of hardware, as opposed to fail stop) in your network links or SSDs. You're also getting significantly stronger durability guarantees with TB [0][1].
It sounds like you were benchmarking on EBS? We recommend NVMe. We have customers running extremely tight 1 second SLAs, seeing microsecond latencies, even for one at a time workloads. Before TB, they were bottlenecking on PG. After TB, they saturated their central bank limit.
I would also be curious to what scale you tested? We test TB to literally 100 billion transactions. It's going to be incredibly hard to replicate that with PG's storage engine. PG is a great string DBMS but it's simply not optimized for integers the way TB is. Granted, your scale likely won't require it, but if you're comparing TPS then you should at least compare sustained scale.
There's also the safety factor of trying to reimplement TB's debit/credit primitives over PG to consider. Rolling it yourself. For example, did you change PG's defaults away from Read-Committed to Serializable and enable checksums in your benchmarks? (PG's checksums, even if you enable them, are still not going to protect you from misdirected I/O like the recent XFS bug.) Even the business logic is deceptively hard, there are thousands of lines of complicated state machine code, and we've invested literally millions into testing and audits.
Finally, it's important that your architecture as a whole, the gateways around TB, designs for concurrency first class, and isn't "one at a time", or TigerBeetle is probably not going to be your bottleneck.
No comments yet
Contribute on Hacker News ↗