Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

14
  • 2
    It's plausible that 10ms is the resolution of the clock, and it took much less time Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 15:51
  • Is there a requirement which says that you need a multi-user database? Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 15:58
  • 2
    In my experience, less than 10ms response times is associated with in-memory stores. The ping on my Internet connection is greater than 10ms. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 16:02
  • 2
    @JoelHarmon I am correctly using the word "meaningful," as in "having a meaning." I think you have taken it to mean "consequential" or "impactful." And I do see what you are getting at. But it misses the point. If there is a dispute over performance and payment, and it goes to court, you will need the terms to be unambiguous, or else the contract could be voided by a judge. And as it is currently written, the requirement is ambiguous. They could decide not to pay if even .0001% of transactions take longer than 10 ms (which IMO would be absurd). Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 22:09
  • 1
    @JohnWu My comment wasn't intended to be directed toward you. The querent referred to this as "meaningless" in both the question and comments, and said he "wouldn't be implementing this". My intent was to point out that ignoring this could have very serious consequences. I agree with all of your technical commentary on clarifying this requirement. I don't have the background to know what a judge or legal system might say about this, especially without knowing the jurisdiction. I think we are agreed that the querent must seek clarification on this. Commented Jun 30, 2020 at 23:18