It really is not an apples to apples comparison. Additionally, there was a discussion recently about small values in Riak:
http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/2012-October/009887.html -Alexander Sicular @siculars On Oct 25, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Denis wrote: > RIAK does not make sense to compare with elevelDB, objective was to assess > the cost of organizing the cluster. > I was surprised by the difference in performance. I expected to order 20 000 > put / sec. Perhaps, RIAK configured incorrect? > With these results, you need at least 4 servers with RIAK to replace one > server elevelDB. RIAK positioned as a high-performance cluster, I think it > is contrary to the speed of one node = 6636 put/sec with a record size of 55 > bytes. > > I'm wrong? > > This is not idle curiosity, I hoped to use it in one of my projects. But the > cost of the required number of servers will be too big. > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://riak-users.197444.n3.nabble.com/Efficiency-of-RIAK-tp4025765p4025785.html > Sent from the Riak Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
