mehrant
Joined 1 year ago
Karma
61
Submissions
42
Member since
Mar 17
Joined 1 year ago
With FeOxDB's write-behind approach:
- Operations return immediately, threads stay available
- Background workers batch writes, amortizing sync costs across many operations
- Same hardware can handle 100x more concurrent requests
- Lower cloud bills from needing fewer instances
For desktop apps, this means your KV store doesn't tie up threads that the UI needs. For servers, it means handling more users without scaling up.The durability tradeoff makes sense when you realize most KV workloads are derived data that can be rebuilt. Why block threads and exhaust IOPS for fsync-level durability on data that doesn't need it?
Test was done using Redis benchmark for 1M random keys, 50 clients, Pipeline depth, 64.
I did this locally on my MBP M3-Max. This gives a little over 2M for Redis and 5.4M for Feox.
redis-benchmark -n 1000000 -r 1000000 -c 50 -P 64 -t SET,GET -q
https://x.com/mltoosi/status/1963599382592590069?s=46
Feox DB itself (the embedded KV behind the server) is quite fast as well. You can also test for yourself or see the criterion benchmark report.
https://feoxdb.com/benchmarks.html
<700ns INSERT and <200ns GET on Feox DB itself.