Also, even if LMDB supports databases larger than RAM, that’s it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to have a working set that exceeds that size. Unless you’re claiming it’s scan resistant?
It has a single writer transaction mutex, yes. But it's a process-shared mutex, so it will serialize write transactions across an arbitrary number of processes. And of course, read transactions are completely lockfree/waitfree across arbitrarily many processes.
As for working set size, that is always merely the height of the B+tree. Scans won't change that. It will always be far more efficient than any other DB under the same conditions.
> As for working set size, that is always merely the height of the B+tree.
This statement makes no sense to me. Are you using a different definition of "working set" than the rest of us? A working set size is application and access pattern dependent.
> It will always be far more efficient than any other DB under the same conditions
That depends on how broadly or narrowly one defines "same conditions" :-)
That’s a bold claim. Are you saying that LMDB outperforms every other database on the same hardware, regardless of access pattern? And if so, is there proof of this?
Since the first question of my two-part inquiry not explicitly answered in the affirmative: To be absolutely clear, you are claiming, in writing, that LMDB outperforms every other database there is, regardless of access pattern, using the same hardware?
Also, even if LMDB supports databases larger than RAM, that’s it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to have a working set that exceeds that size. Unless you’re claiming it’s scan resistant?