SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives Learn more β
Buntdb Alternatives
Similar projects and alternatives to buntdb
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
immudb
immudb - immutable database based on zero trust, SQL/Key-Value/Document model, tamperproof, data change history
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
tidb
TiDB is an open-source, cloud-native, distributed, MySQL-Compatible database for elastic scale and real-time analytics. Try AI-powered Chat2Query free at : https://tidbcloud.com/free-trial
-
LevelDB
LevelDB is a fast key-value storage library written at Google that provides an ordered mapping from string keys to string values.
-
orioledb
OrioleDB β building a modern cloud-native storage engine (... and solving some PostgreSQL wicked problems) Β πΊπ¦
-
go-cache
An in-memory key:value store/cache (similar to Memcached) library for Go, suitable for single-machine applications.
-
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.
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
buntdb reviews and mentions
-
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% β 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.
-
A note from our sponsor - SaaSHub
www.saashub.com | 24 Apr 2024
Stats
tidwall/buntdb is an open source project licensed under MIT License which is an OSI approved license.
The primary programming language of buntdb is Go.
Sponsored