MySqlConnector VS FrameworkBenchmarks

MySqlConnector (the most popular .NET library for MySQL, and the one that I authored) has supported protocol compression for many years: https://github.com/mysql-net/MySqlConnector/issues/31.

> I kept technical notes about the protocol, to serve as a future reference for myself and for other developers.

As someone who's written a MySQL client (in C#: https://github.com/mysql-net/MySqlConnector), I'd be very interested to see your notes. Are they available anywhere, or were they the confidential IP of your client?

> Unsurprisingly, bugs were uncovered every time a new client was added.

I've faced the same thing, from a client perspective. Every time a new server is tested (MySQL, MariaDB, Amazon Aurora, Azure Database for MySQL, etc.), I find slightly different interpretations of the protocol and have to accommodate them.

I have had the pleasure of contributing to a couple different networked drivers with very talented maintainers that I like to use as references.

One supports a wide array of Framework versions and has both Sync and Async I/O, as it must to implement the ADO.NET database driver interfaces. Reading the internals really highlight the way that .NET has evolved over the years and what must be done in each target version to maximize performance:

https://github.com/mysql-net/MySqlConnector

The other supports .NET 6 only with Async I/O only. This support policy seems to be the way that "modern" .NET development is headed, as .NET 6 will be the floor for LTS .NET (formerly .NET Core) releases in a few months. Async APIs only greatly simplify development, and make it simpler to remain performant when targeting WASM.

https://github.com/Cysharp/AlterNats

As a library maintainer, one thing I often wonder about is how to indicate .NET version support. One option would be for the major version of the library to track the major version of .NET, so if I were to publish a new library today then start with .NET 6 support and start with version number 6.0.0 instead of 1.0.0. This would limit the library to only making breaking changes when the .NET version changes though.

Use the MySqlConnector to load the data into a temp table using the bulk copy API. Both of my libraries implement the IDataReader (DbDataReader) interface, so they can be directly used with the bulk copy APIs. Then insert into the final table from the temp table filtering out rows that are already in the final table.

I'm the author of what you might call the "new" MySQL ADO.NET library: https://github.com/mysql-net/MySqlConnector

I agree with your impression that developers of the other library don't seem to be "plugged in to" the .NET ecosystem. As an independent developer (not affiliated with Oracle or Microsoft), I've been able to influence GitHub PRs that shape the ADO.NET API for .NET 6.0, just by showing up and contributing; I haven't seen anyone from the Oracle MySQL team participating. Meanwhile, they violate basic principles of the .NET Framework Design Guidelines that have been around for over a decade (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/design-guid...), which makes their library feel alien to a .NET programmer (regardless of the quality issues it might have).

e.g. this community effort of a MySQL ADO.NET provider is miles ahead of Oracle's driver.

Neat. Thanks for sharing!

Interestingly, may-minihttp is faring very well in the TechEmpower benchmark [1], for whatever those benchmarks are worth. The code is also surprisingly straightforward [2].

[1] https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/

[2] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...

ntex was formed after a schism in actix-web and Rust safety/unsafety, with ntex allowing more unsafe code for better performance.

ntex is at the top of the TechEmpower benchmarks, although those benchmarks are not apples-to-apples since each uses its own tricks: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s...

Ruby is slow. Very slow. How much you may ask? https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s... fastest Ruby entry is at 272th place. Sure, top entries tend to have questionable benchmark-golfing implementations, but it gives you a good primer on the overhead imposed by Ruby.

It is also not early 00s anymore, when you pick an interpreted language, you are not getting "better productivity and tooling". In fact, most interpreted languages lag behind other major languages significantly in the form of JS/TS, Python and Ruby suffering from different woes when it comes to package management and publishing. I would say only TS/JS manages to stand apart with being tolerable, and Python sometimes too by a virtue of its popularity and the amount of information out there whenever you need to troubleshoot.

If you liked Go but felt it being a too verbose to your liking, give .NET a try. I am advocating for it here on HN mostly for fun but it is, in fact, highly underappreciated, considered unsexy and boring while it's anything but after a complete change of trajectory in the last 3-5 years. It is actually the* stack people secretly want but simply don't know about because it is bundled together with Java in the public perception.

*productive CLI tooling, high performance, works well in a really wide range of workloads from low to high level, by far the best ORM across all languages and back-end framework that is easier to work with than Node.JS while consuming 0.1x resources

Although that seems to have improved in recent years.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=json§...

RoR and whatever C++ based web backend there is count as a valid comparison in my book. But comparing the languages itself is maybe a bit off.

On a side note, you can actually compare their performance here if you’re really curious. But take it with a grain of salt since these are synthetic benchmarks.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks

Most benchmarks you'll find essentially have someone's thumb on the scale (intentionally or unintentionally). Most people won't know the different languages well enough to create comparable implementations and if you let different people create the implementations, cheating happens. The TechEmpower benchmarks aren't bad, but many implementations put their thumb on the scale (https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks). For example, a lot of the Go implementations avoid the GC by pre-allocating/reusing structs or allocate arrays knowing how big they need to be in advance (despite that being against the rules). At some point, it becomes "how many features have you turned off." Some Go http routers (like fasthttp and those built off it like Atreugo and Fiber) aren't actually correct and a lot of people in the Go community discourage their use, but they certainly top the benchmarks. Gin and Echo are usually the ones that are well-respected in the Go community.

There is certainly a lot of speculation in Techempower benchmarks and top entries can utilize questionable techniques like simply writing a byte array literal to output stream instead of constructing a response, or (in the past) DB query coalescing to work around inherent limitations of the DB in case of Fortunes or DB quries.

And yet, the fastest Ruby entry is at 274th place while Rails is at 427th.

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#hw=ph&test=fortune&s...

oh what machine? with how many workers? doing what?

search for "node" on this page: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21

JustJS would like a word https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r20&tes...

In terms of RPS, this web service is more-or-less the fortunes benchmark in the techempower benchmarks, once the data hits the cache: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21

Or, at least, they would be after applying optimizations to them.

In short, both of these would serve more rps than you will likely ever need on even the lowest end virtual machines. The underlying API provider will probably cut you off from querying them before you run out of RPS.