> KEYS * ... O(N) with N being the number of keys in the database
How can this NOT be the case? The problem isn't the algorithmic complexity -- O(n) is optimal -- but that you are probably either bouncing around memory or running though way more of than you need to depending on the order returned and the data structure used.
This whole article sounds like a bunch of "Full Stack" developers running around making a mess of things with simple mistakes that any real back-end person wouldn't have made in the first place.
As mentioned in the article, the documentation wasn't quite as obvious on the problems with KEYS. The problem was created way back when being "a real back-end person" still meant something completely different.
How can this NOT be the case? The problem isn't the algorithmic complexity -- O(n) is optimal -- but that you are probably either bouncing around memory or running though way more of than you need to depending on the order returned and the data structure used.
This whole article sounds like a bunch of "Full Stack" developers running around making a mess of things with simple mistakes that any real back-end person wouldn't have made in the first place.