Maybe he wanted to know where each DB shines compared to each other, to see if some workloads are better suited to one or the other.
Of course, benchmarks "should" include concurrent reads/updates/writes/deletes because it can make a huge difference depending on the DB's implementation.
Of course, the author "should" also have tested sharding / durability / resistance to partition / resource consumption in his tests... Maybe he didn't have the resources to test properly. I also do quick&dirty benchmarks like these, mostly because exhaustive benchmarks cost so much more (time, money, expertise)...
Comments
We know nothing about the author's use case...
Maybe he wanted to know where each DB shines compared to each other, to see if some workloads are better suited to one or the other.
Of course, benchmarks "should" include concurrent reads/updates/writes/deletes because it can make a huge difference depending on the DB's implementation.
Of course, the author "should" also have tested sharding / durability / resistance to partition / resource consumption in his tests... Maybe he didn't have the resources to test properly. I also do quick&dirty benchmarks like these, mostly because exhaustive benchmarks cost so much more (time, money, expertise)...