MySqlConnector VS .NET Runtime

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.

It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.

It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).

Or they could use 4-digit years.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148

These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.

Reference:

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...

- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...

CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.

DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591

Support zstd Content-Encoding:

We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.

There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.

Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet exists for source build that stitches together SDK, Roslyn, runtime and other dependencies. A lot of them can be built and used individually, which is what contributors usually do. For example, you can clone and build https://github.com/dotnet/runtime and use the produced artifacts to execute .NET assemblies or build .NET binaries.

Yeah, it kind of is. There are quite a few of experiments that are conducted to see if they show promise in the prototype form and then are taken further for proper integration if they do.

Unfortunately, object stack allocation was not one of them even though DOTNET_JitObjectStackAllocation configuration knob exists today, enabling it makes zero impact as it almost never kicks in. By the end of the experiment[0], it was concluded that before investing effort in this kind of feature becomes profitable given how a lot of C# code is written, there are many other lower hanging fruits.

To contrast this, in continuation to green threads experiment, a runtime handled tasks experiment[1] which moves async state machine handling from IL emitted by Roslyn to special-cased methods and then handling purely in runtime code has been a massive success and is now being worked on to be integrated in one of the future version of .NET (hopefully 10?)

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/11192

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...