better-sqlite3 VS dqlite

In the second video of the series, we are separating routers and adding SQLite, Better SQLite 3, Database to the application to show access to context for performing a simple query and mutation.

If I were charged with this task I'd probably take an actual SQLite DB and write methods to parse data from text files, then process it within SQLite, and serialize it back to the text file when an API method is called or after each processing step. A fresh DB engine, fully re-implemented to match SQLite's API is insane unless you're a prodigy or have a sizable team and will come with numerous downsides. I can recommend https://github.com/WiseLibs/better-sqlite3 and https://github.com/loveencounterflow/dbay

better-sqlite3 is orders of magnitude faster than the async SQLite bindings. We found this to be true when testing SQLite options for Notion's desktop app anyways.

https://github.com/WiseLibs/better-sqlite3#why-should-i-use-...

Better SQLite is a wrapper around the SQLite database engine that provides a number of improvements over the standard SQLite API. One of those benefits is type safety, Better SQLite uses TypeScript to provide type safety for queries, which can help to prevent errors.

better-sqlite3 does the job synchronously

I used better-sqlite3 . It is simple to use as it is synchronous. I don't know if it scales good (at least the docs say it) but works great for my small use cases.

Kent's recommended NodeJS module, `better-sqlite3`, has some very nifty features including the creation of JavaScript user-defined functions[0] that (if I understand this right) can be called from SQLite. Combined with TRIGGERs, I wonder if it might fire a function within the app when an UPDATE/INSERT happens from a different process? (This is me wondering out loud, I don't actually know.)

I also recommend checking out Replicache[1] and alternatives, which may be a better way to handle the networking and database replication so that it doesn't rely on the underlying DB.

[0] https://github.com/WiseLibs/better-sqlite3/blob/HEAD/docs/ap...

If you're interested in this, here are some related projects that all take slightly different approaches:

- LiteSync directly competes with Marmot and supports DDL sync, but is closed source commercial (similar to SQLite EE): https://litesync.io

- dqlite is Canonical's distributed SQLite that depends on c-raft and kernel-level async I/O: https://dqlite.io

- cr-sqlite is a Rust-based loadable extension that adds CRDT changeset generation and reconciliation to SQLite: https://github.com/vlcn-io/cr-sqlite

Slightly related but not really (no multi writer, no C-level SQLite API or other restrictions):

- comdb2 (Bloombergs multi-homed RDMS using SQLite as the frontend)

- rqlite: RDMS with HTTP API and SQLite as the storage engine, used for replication and strong consistency (does not scale writes)

- litestream/LiteFS: disaster recovery replication

- liteserver: active read-only replication (predecessor of LiteSync)

I'd be curious for a similar tuning with Dqlite: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite

Anyone knows how the DB this is about, https://rqlite.io/, compares with https://dqlite.io/ by Canonical (both seem to be distributed versions of sqlite)?

For folks' context, the new tool that's being discussed in the thread mentioned by the parent here is litefs [0], as well as which you can also look at rqlite [1] and dqlite [2], which all provide different trade-offs (e.g. rqlite is 'more strongly consistent' than litefs).

[0]: https://github.com/superfly/litefs

[1]: https://github.com/rqlite/rqlite

[2]: https://github.com/canonical/dqlite

I presume you're familiar with https://github.com/canonical/dqlite (made by my employer) and https://github.com/rqlite/rqlite (unrelated)? How will mvsqlite compare to those?

Check out dqlite, it's sqlite but with a raft consensus to distribute changes through a log: https://dqlite.io/ You can link it in as a library too, it sounds like exactly what you want.