They basically only save on serialization & deserialization at query time, which I would consider an infinitesimal saving in the vast majority of use cases. They claim to be able to build some magical index that's not possible with existing disk-based databases (I didn't read the linked blog post). They lose access to a nice query language and entire ecosystems of tools and domain knowledge.
I fail to see how this little bit of saving justifies all the complexity for run-of-the-mill web services that fit on one or a few servers as described in the article. The context isn't large scale services where 1ms/request saving translates to $$$, and the proposal doesn't (vertically) scale anyway.
You should probably RTFA before making broad assumptions on their solution and how it works. Most of what you wrote is both incorrect and addressed in the article.
Telling people to RTFA is against site guidelines. And I read the entire article before making this comment. If you think I’m wrong, you reply with what’s wrong, not some useless “you’re wrong, RTFA”.
The only thing in my comment that’s not directly based on the article is a handwavy 1ms/request saving estimate, and since they don’t provide any measurement, it’s anyone’s guess.
Is telling the people to RTFA against the guidelines?
The guideline specifically advises to do what GP did: Instead of commenting whether or not someone read the article, to tell them that article answers their questions.
I fail to see how this little bit of saving justifies all the complexity for run-of-the-mill web services that fit on one or a few servers as described in the article. The context isn't large scale services where 1ms/request saving translates to $$$, and the proposal doesn't (vertically) scale anyway.