buntdb
bbolt
buntdb | bbolt | |
---|---|---|
7 | 18 | |
4,390 | 7,668 | |
- | 2.0% | |
0.0 | 9.0 | |
about 1 month ago | 4 days ago | |
Go | Go | |
MIT License | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
buntdb
-
PostgreSQL: No More Vacuum, No More Bloat
Experimental format to help readability of a long rant:
1.
According to the OP, there's a "terrifying tale of VACUUM in PostgreSQL," dating back to "a historical artifact that traces its roots back to the Berkeley Postgres project." (1986?)
2.
Maybe the whole idea of "use X, it has been battle-tested for [TIME], is robust, all the bugs have been and keep being fixed," etc., should not really be that attractive or realistic for at least a large subset of projects.
3.
In the case of Postgres, on top of piles of "historic code" and cruft, there's the fact that each user of Postgres installs and runs a huge software artifact with hundreds or even thousands of features and dependencies, of which every particular user may only use a tiny subset.
4.
In Kleppmann's DDOA [1], after explaining why the declarative SQL language is "better," he writes: "in databases, declarative query languages like SQL turned out to be much better than imperative query APIs." I find this footnote to the paragraph a bit ironic: "IMS and CODASYL both used imperative query APIs. Applications typically used COBOL code to iterate over records in the database, one record at a time." So, SQL was better than CODASYL and COBOL in a number of ways... big surprise?
Postgres' own PL/pgSQL [2] is a language that (I imagine) most people would rather NOT use: hence a bunch of alternatives, including PL/v8, on its own a huge mass of additional complexity. SQL is definitely "COBOLESQUE" itself.
5.
Could we come up with something more minimal than SQL and looking less like COBOL? (Hopefully also getting rid of ORMs in the process). Also, I have found inspiring to see some people creating databases for themselves. Perhaps not a bad idea for small applications? For instance, I found BuntDB [3], which the developer seems to be using to run his own business [4]. Also, HYTRADBOI? :-) [5].
6.
A usual objection to use anything other than a stablished relational DB is "creating a database is too difficult for the average programmer." How about debugging PostgreSQL issues, developing new storage engines for it, or even building expertise on how to set up the instances properly and keep it alive and performant? Is that easier?
I personally feel more capable of implementing a small, well-tested, problem-specific, small implementation of a B-Tree than learning how to develop Postgres extensions, become an expert in its configuration and internals, or debug its many issues.
Another common opinion is "SQL is easy to use for non-programmers." But every person that knows SQL had to learn it somehow. I'm 100% confident that anyone able to learn SQL should be able to learn a simple, domain-specific, programming language designed for querying DBs. And how many of these people that are not able to program imperatively would be able to read a SQL EXPLAIN output and fix deficient queries? If they can, that supports even more the idea that they should be able to learn something different than SQL.
----
1: https://dataintensive.net/
2: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/plpgsql-examples.html
3: https://github.com/tidwall/buntdb
4: https://tile38.com/
5: https://www.hytradboi.com/
-
Is there a nice embedded json db, like PoloDB (Rust) for Golang
https://github.com/tidwall/buntdb -> i think this one you might want
-
Open Source Databases in Go
buntdb - Fast, embeddable, in-memory key/value database for Go with custom indexing and spatial support.
-
Alternative to MongoDB?
BuntDB for NoSQL
-
Path hints for B-trees can bring a performance increase of 150% – 300%
BuntDB [0] from @tidwall uses this package as a backing data structure. And BuntDB is in turn used by Tile38 [1]
[0] https://github.com/tidwall/buntdb
- The start of my journey learning Go. Any tips/suggestions would greatly appreciated!
-
In-memory caching solutions
I've used BuntDB and had a great experience with it. It's basically just a JSON-based key-value store. I'm a huge fan of the developers other work (sjson, gjson, jj, etc) and stumbled on it while looking for a simple, embedded DB solution. It's not specifically a cache, though--just a simple DB, so you'd have to write the caching logic yourself.
bbolt
-
How to extract key-value versioning from BBoltDB in ETCD as a Go Code
Based on this [GitHub document](https://github.com/etcd-io/bbolt) for BBoltDB, we can understand that Go Code be used to create a BBoltDB database on the system. The key-values added & operations done on them in that Go Code are stored in the BBoltDB database.
-
Locker: Store secrets on your local file system.
A Locker is a store on your file system (built on top of the amazing bbolt).
-
Looking for fast, space-efficient key-lookup
- bbolt for storage on disk. In order to get the smallest db file size possible make sure you insert the keys in order and set:
- is it possible to create a social media with all apis without database saving all the data into a yml or a json?
-
BoltDB performance hit with large values?
I'm wanting to store some wasm modules (as []byte) in BoltDB. Right now the modules are <1MB, but eventually, they could be 10-50MB in size. Is this going to reduce the performance of BoltDB all around, if the size of a value is this large? If it makes a difference, I'm using the Storm toolkit for querying.
-
Open Source Databases in Go
bbolt - An embedded key/value database for Go.
-
Help to learn multithreading in Go
For learning goroutines and channels, I usually recommend writing a program that reads from files and writes the data in a dummy database with something like https://github.com/etcd-io/bbolt. It's relatively simple and you're more likely to run into common manifestations of concurrency issues running disk operations.
-
[Noob] Question about Channels
If you would like to explore usage of channels, I highly recommend writing a program that reads from files and writes the data in a dummy database with something like https://github.com/etcd-io/bbolt.
-
A tiny NoSQL database
No transactions, no consistency guarantees, no benchmarks, global locks in the storage implementation, a collection is copied in its entirety on every insertion to it...I realize it's not for the same use case as MySQL or MongoDB, but a more obvious comparison here is e.g. https://github.com/etcd-io/bbolt. So why should someone use this over bbolt?
-
A pure Go embedded SQL database
use go-sqlite3 to work with sqlite3 is one choice.
https://github.com/etcd-io/bbolt is another pure go option.
cznic seems like an alternative to bbolt. nice to have some options.
What are some alternatives?
bolt
badger - Fast key-value DB in Go.
nutsdb - A simple, fast, embeddable, persistent key/value store written in pure Go. It supports fully serializable transactions and many data structures such as list, set, sorted set.
goleveldb - LevelDB key/value database in Go.
go-memdb - Golang in-memory database built on immutable radix trees
go-sqlite - Low-level Go interface to SQLite 3
BigCache - Efficient cache for gigabytes of data written in Go.
ledisdb - A high performance NoSQL Database Server powered by Go
Bitcask - 🔑 A high performance Key/Value store written in Go with a predictable read/write performance and high throughput. Uses a Bitcask on-disk layout (LSM+WAL) similar to Riak.