jlangevin at loomlearning.com
Mon Jul 4 09:42:29 EDT 2011
I've seen users show concern of Bitcask's space usage overhead. How does
that compare against LevelDB?
Would LevelDB be a good solution for log data?
If using a Level backend, what advantages do we lose of Bitcask? ls
replication & availability an issue at all?
Wilmington, NC: (910) 241-0433 - jlangevin at loomlearning.com -
www.loomlearning.com - Skype: intel352
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, David Smith <dizzyd at basho.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Will Moss <wmoss at bu.mp> wrote:
> > This is very cool--glad you guys decided to bundle this in. The linked
> > and the Google Code page both suggest that it will have a much more
> > efficient on-disk representation than InnoDB, do you have an specific
> > numbers on overhead per key?
> I don't think we've officially measured it; in my own tests, it's
> quite small. A 10GB dataset was within a few MB of what I expected.
> Certainly FAR more efficient than Inno (where I've seen 2-3x).
> Dave Smith
> Director, Engineering
> Basho Technologies, Inc.
> dizzyd at basho.com
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the riak-users