i'm assuming you're talking about the real postgres integration that LL is working on, not the KV joke. There is performance testing from alby from a year and a half ago for the KV one
i missed the latest LLabs roundtable but there are generally several problems to performance:
external database adds network latency and round trips over boltdb
you need very good architecture, schema and implementation due to row/table locking with updates etc
if you have synchronous replication for high availability you inject more latency into the process
Generally I don't think you'd want to be the early adopter of this if you want a high performance node since i'd expect a mixed bag of results and issues before the database gets polished enough. I'm also not sure postgresql integration, if done with 1:1 mapping is ever gonna be as high performance as boltdb. But I have not kept up2date with latest developments and architecture changes in lnd to see how they envisioned this migration and getting the performance up for it.
i'm assuming you're talking about the real postgres integration that LL is working on, not the KV joke. There is performance testing from alby from a year and a half ago for the KV one
i missed the latest LLabs roundtable but there are generally several problems to performance:
Generally I don't think you'd want to be the early adopter of this if you want a high performance node since i'd expect a mixed bag of results and issues before the database gets polished enough. I'm also not sure postgresql integration, if done with 1:1 mapping is ever gonna be as high performance as boltdb. But I have not kept up2date with latest developments and architecture changes in lnd to see how they envisioned this migration and getting the performance up for it.