More details about SchoonerSQL performance, please!

Schooner has a blog post showing that one node of their product beats 9 nodes of Clustrix’s in throughput. But this reduces everything to a single number, and that’s not everything that matters. If you’ve looked at Vadim’s white paper about Clustrix’s (paid-for) performance evaluation with Percona, you see there is a lot of detail about how consistent the throughput and response time are.

I’d love to see that level of details in any product comparison. A single number often isn’t enough to judge how good the performance is – fast is not the only thing that matters.

I have absolutely no doubts that a single node of Schooner’s product can run like a deer. It isn’t doing any cross-node communication, after all, so it had better be faster than something that blends multiple nodes together into a virtual “single database server.” And I think if the full story were told, it would be a great knock-down drag-out fight. Give us more details, Schooner!

See Also

I'm Baron Schwartz, the founder and CEO of VividCortex. I am the author of High Performance MySQL and lots of open-source software for performance analysis, monitoring, and system administration. I contribute to various database communities such as Oracle, PostgreSQL, Redis and MongoDB. More about me.