If only. But you also need to fix the internal concurrency control of the DBMS storage engine. TB here is very different to PG.

For example, if you have 8K transactions through 2 accounts, a naive system might read the 2 accounts, update their balances, then write the 2 accounts… for all 8K (!) transactions.

Whereas TB does vectorized concurrency control: read the 2 accounts, update them 8K times, write the 2 accounts.

This is why stored procedures only get you typically about a 10x win, you don’t see the same 1000x as with TB, especially at power law contention.

Huge fan of what tiger beatle promotes. Even in simple system/projects batching and reducing contention can be massive win. Batching + single application writer alone in something like sqlite can get you to pretty ridiculous inserts/updates per second (although transactions become at the batch level).

I sometimes wonder how many fewer servers we would need if the aproaches promoted by Tiger Style were more widespread.

What datasteucture does Tiger Beatle use for it's client? I'm assuming its multi writer single reader. I've always wondered what the best choice is there. A reverse LMAX disruptor (multiple producers single consumer).