FASTER VS doltgresql

You would be surprised by performance of modern .NET :)

Writing no-alloc is oftentimes done by reducing complexity and not doing "stupid" tricks that actually work against JIT and CoreLib features.

For databases specifically, .NET is actually positioned very well with its low-level features (intrisics incl. SIMD, FFI, struct generics though not entirely low-level) and high-throughput GC.

Interesting example of this applied in practice is Garnet[0]/FASTER[1]. Keep in mind that its codebase still consist of un-idiomatic C# and you can do way better by further simplification, but it already does the job well enough.

[0] https://github.com/microsoft/garnet

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/FASTER

A vaguely similar project that might be of interest is: https://github.com/microsoft/FASTER

It's also an "unbundled" low-level component that one could use as the foundation for a database engine or whatever. According to Microsoft, FASTER is not just "fast", but significantly faster than even some basic in-memory data structures that ship in the .NET standard library!

The downside is that it doesn't (yet) support some more advanced features like multi-server distributed mode.

However, that relative simplicity may be preferred in some scenarios...

Last time i looked into it there weren't that many i could find. There is https://github.com/tikv/tikv which uses rocksdb with raft. and there is faster https://github.com/microsoft/FASTER/ .

you could use fasterkv https://github.com/microsoft/FASTER

FTA, https://github.com/Microsoft/FASTER/wiki/Performance-of-FAST...

PostgreSQL support here

https://github.com/dolthub/doltgresql

Background and architecture discussion here

https://dolthub.com/blog/2023-11-01-announcing-doltgresql/

We're writing a postgres-compatible database that doesn't use any postgres code:

https://github.com/dolthub/doltgresql/

We're doing this because our main product (Dolt) is MySQL-compatible, but a lot of people prefer postgres. Like, they really strongly prefer postgres. When figuring out how to support them, we basically had three options:

1) Foreign data wrapper. This doesn't work well because you can't use non-native stored procedure calls, which are used heavily throughout our product (e.g. CALL DOLT_COMMIT('-m', 'changes'), CALL DOLT_BRANCH('newBranch')). We would have had to invent a new UX surface area for the product just to support Postgres.

2) Fork postgres, write our own storage layer and parser extensions, etc. Definitely doable, but it would mean porting our existing Go codebase to C, and not being able to share code with Dolt as development continues. Or else rewriting Dolt in C, throwing out the last 5 years of work. Or doing something very complicated and difficult to use a golang library from C code.

3) Emulation. Keep Dolt's Go codebase and query engine and build a Postgres layer on top of it to support the syntax, wire protocol, types, functions, etc.

Ultimately we went with the emulation approach as the least bad option, but it's an uphill climb to get to enough postgres support to be worth using. Our main effort right now is getting all of postgres's types working.

Very cool. I wonder when it makes sense to engineer things at this level vs using something like Azure AI search. [0]

Love to see version control on all the things! Wonder if the version control features would be more robust if implemented in Doltgres.

[0] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/ai-services/ai-se...

[1] https://github.com/dolthub/doltgresql