So at first glance this looks pretty amazing, and you deserve kudos for your documentation quality alone!
2 comments. First, if you're going to lead with statements like "faster than x" - link to your benchmarks. They're not hard to find but I did have to go looking.
Second, the skipped "random read" test is a glaring red flag to me, and honestly raises far more concerns than a weak result would have (a weak microbenchmark result may or may not be important, and at worst is something to be considered in engineering, while but trust issues with a vendor are poison ).
I don't know why you skipped the test, maybe it was time, maybe you didn't think it important, maybe you got unusual results and want to retest.
But right now it looks like a footgun in what seems to be a very high quality release.
So at first glance this looks pretty amazing, and you deserve kudos for your documentation quality alone!
2 comments. First, if you're going to lead with statements like "faster than x" - link to your benchmarks. They're not hard to find but I did have to go looking. Second, the skipped "random read" test is a glaring red flag to me, and honestly raises far more concerns than a weak result would have (a weak microbenchmark result may or may not be important, and at worst is something to be considered in engineering, while but trust issues with a vendor are poison ).
I don't know why you skipped the test, maybe it was time, maybe you didn't think it important, maybe you got unusual results and want to retest. But right now it looks like a footgun in what seems to be a very high quality release.
Kudos, how does it compare to lmdb ?