Hacker News
new
|
past
|
comments
|
ask
|
show
|
jobs
|
submit
login
mahmud
on July 26, 2010
|
parent
|
context
|
favorite
| on:
1.25 Billion Key/Value Pairs in Redis 2.0.0-rc3 on...
I’m kind of tempted to re-run this test using LISTS, then SETS, then SORTED SETS just to see how they all compare from a storage point of view.
Yes please, that would be much appreciated.
jzawodn
on July 26, 2010
[–]
I figured it'd be useful to do... just need to block off a bit of time. Perhaps in the next 24 hours if I'm lucky.
yosh
on July 26, 2010
|
parent
[–]
I've noticed that sorted sets have noticeably more overhead than the other types.
subwindow
on July 26, 2010
|
root
|
parent
[–]
If that's true, I wonder why. Maybe is they are trying to get O(1) access? Storing it the 'default' way would be O(log n) which isn't bad, but might still be unacceptable.
subwindow
on July 26, 2010
|
root
|
parent
[–]
Ah, I found my answer. Sets are stored in both a skip list and a hash table. So the overhead is indeed high.
Guidelines
|
FAQ
|
Lists
|
API
|
Security
|
Legal
|
Apply to YC
|
Contact
Search:
Yes please, that would be much appreciated.