← Back to context

Comment by slopinthebag

16 days ago

My comment was unrelated to benchmarking and I don’t see anything in that blogpost addressing my comment.

Also you’re spamming the same comment up and down this thread. Did this post upset you?

3 comments

slopinthebag

Reply
cloutiertyler  16 days ago

Yes, of course it did. This article makes factually wrong claims about the database I've spent 6+ years building.

Your comment was about whether SpacetimeDB was "just a hashmap behind a RwLock" and the blog post I linked addresses that question. Namely, it does have a RwLock, but that is by design and produces better results than the alternative.

  • slopinthebag  16 days ago

    Better results than the alternative, assuming your use case is to find two accounts by indexed ID, check a balance, and update two rows. And you have a small in-memory dataset, tiny rows, indexed point lookups, very little application computation, no external I/O, no joins, no analytical queries, no large scans, no disk-capacity pressure, thousands of independent requests available for pipelining, and deliberate hot-row contention. Or in other words, you have the perfect conditions for a...hashmap behind an RwLock!

    Hm I wonder why people find this benchmark unfair...