There's also a sort of anti-everything attitude that gets boring and lazy. Redis is about the simplest thing possible to deploy. This wasn't about "a redis cluster with elastisearch using an LLM" it was just Redis.

I sometimes read this stuff like people explaining how they replaced their spoon and fork with a spork and measured only a 50% decrease in food eating performance. And have you heard of the people with a $20,000 Parisian cutlery set to eat McDonalds? I just can't understand insane fork enjoyers with their over-engineered their dining experience.

Not necessarily true. If you're sharing the database with your transaction workload your cache will be paged out eventually.

> If you, like the whole world, consume Redis through a network connection, it should be obvious to you that network is in fact the bottleneck.

Not to be annoying - but... what?

I specifically _do not_ use Redis over a network. It's wildly fast. High volume data ingest use case - lots and lots of parallel queue workers. The database is over the network, Redis is local (socket). Yes, this means that each server running these workers has its own cache - that's fine, I'm using the cache for absolutely insane speed and I'm not caching huge objects of data. I don't persist it to disk, I don't care (well, it's not a big deal) if I lose the data - it'll rehydrate in such a case.

Try it some time, it's fun.

> And at the end of the day, what exactly is the performance tradeoff? And does it pay off to spend more on an in-memory cache like Redis to buy you the performance Delta?

Yes, yes it is.

> That's why real world benchmarks like this one are important.

That's not what this is though. Just about nobody who has a clue is using default configurations for things like PG or Redis.

> They help people think through the problem and reassess their irrational beliefs.

Ok but... um... you just stated that "the whole world" consumes redis through a network connection. (Which, IMO, is wrong tool for the job - sure it will work, but that's not where/how Redis shines)

> What you cannot refute are the real world numbers.

Where? This article is not that.

> If you, like the whole world, consume Redis through a network connection

I think "you are definitely missing some key insights onto the topic". The whole world is a lot bigger than your anecdotes.

"I'll use postgres" was going to be your conclusion no matter what I guess?

I mean what if an actual benchmark showed Redis is 100X as fast as postgres for a certain use case? What are the constraints you might be operating with? What are the characteristics of your workload? What are your budgetary constraints?

Why not just write a blog post saying "Unoptimized postgres vs redis for the lazy, running virtualized with a bottleneck at the networking level"

I even think that blog post would be interesting, and might be useful to someone choosing a stack for a proof of concept. For someone who to scale to large production workloads (~10,000 requests/second or more), this isn't a very useful article, so the criticism is fair, and I'm not sure why you're dismissing it off hand.

That's the point, you put no effort and decided to do what you had decided already to do before.