I'd be more interested and might provide a somewhat less negative attitude if you were to do some real testing on a proper dataset (several hundred megabytes or gigabytes, not 10 bytes) and could show that adding servers actually improves performance.
The current test-data and test-script is simply insufficient to the point of being useless.
Like I have already stated I am interested in how the system will run in production. Generally, you will do lots of small updates and lots of small fetches with key-value databases. You won't do batch operations - which makes your benchmark pretty irrelevant.
Try to benchmark your relational database by doing this:
- create a new connection
- fetch one row
- close connection
And try to compare this to selecting multiple rows at once. The result will be MUCH different. And this basically outlines the difference between your benchmark and mine.
This said, you will only hit limitations with a relational databases if you are having lots of data. If you run a blog, a low traffic site or can keep all your data in memory, then you won't have any problems. And I do have experience in the world of relational databases and using MSSQL won't solve this problem for you (else you would see Facebook, Friendfeed, Twitter and Google etc. use MSSQL or Oracle).
I'd be more interested and might provide a somewhat less negative attitude if you were to do some real testing on a proper dataset (several hundred megabytes or gigabytes, not 10 bytes) and could show that adding servers actually improves performance.
The current test-data and test-script is simply insufficient to the point of being useless.