We definitely need more and better low level key-value stores, especially write-optimized ones. It sounds like InfluxDB has correctly identified the pain points with LevelDB and LMDB, but it's yet to be seen whether they've succeeded in addressing them. The article kind of petered out without a proper conclusion.
The people who are talking about Postgres in this thread are thoroughly confused. This isn't a competitor to Postgres, this is a platform for building a competitor to Postgres (or, hypothetically, something Postgres itself could use). I guess maybe they mean InfluxDB rather than the subject of the article.
seriously? I'm always confused by the large number of different low level key-value stores on offer. All claiming to be the fastest, with benchmarks to back it up.
Reading the article, it seems that they could have contributed some development to Rocksdb and saved themselves a lot of time rather than implementing their own system.
RocksDB has the same problems as LevelDB (uses large numbers of file descriptors, considerable read overhead compared to LMDB), plus it's even more complex and harder to configure. I had high hopes for the LSM tree from SQLite4[1], but last I checked development was stalled.
The people who are talking about Postgres in this thread are thoroughly confused. This isn't a competitor to Postgres, this is a platform for building a competitor to Postgres (or, hypothetically, something Postgres itself could use). I guess maybe they mean InfluxDB rather than the subject of the article.