crdt-benchmarks
dotted-logootsplit
Our great sponsors
crdt-benchmarks | dotted-logootsplit | |
---|---|---|
8 | 2 | |
397 | 51 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 0.0 | |
2 months ago | about 1 year ago | |
JavaScript | TypeScript | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | Mozilla Public License 2.0 |
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.
crdt-benchmarks
-
JSON-joy CRDT benchmarks, 100x speed improvement over state-of-the-art
Author of Yjs here. I'm all for faster data structures. But only benchmarking one dimension looks quite fishy to me. A CRDT needs to be adequate at multiple dimensions. At least you should describe the tradeoffs in your article.
The time to insert characters is the least interesting property of a CRDT. It doesn't matter to the user whether a character is inserted within .1ms or .000000001ms. No human can type that fast.
It would be much more interesting to benchmark the time it takes to load a document containing X operations. Yjs & Yrs are pretty performant and conservative on memory here because they don't have to build an index (it's a tradeoff that we took consciously).
When benchmarking it is important to measure the right things and interpret the results somehow so that you can give recommendations when to use your algorithm / implementation. Some things can't be fast/low enough (e.g. time to load a document, time to apply updates, memory consumption, ..) other things only need to be adequate (e.g. time to insert a character into a document).
Unfortunately, a lot of academic papers set a bad trend of only measuring one dimension. Yeah, it's really easy to succeed in one dimension (e.g. memory or insertion-time) and it is very nice click-bait. But that doesn't make your CRDT a viable option in practice.
I maintain a set of benchmarks that tests multiple dimensions [1]. I'd love to receive a PR from you.
-
CRDT-richtext: Rust implementation of Peritext and Fugue
Diamond types author here! Congratulations on getting your crdt working! It’s lovely to see a new generation of CRDTs which have decent performance.
And nice stuff implementing peritext! I’d love to do the same in diamond types at some point. You beat me to it!
Im building a little repository of real world collaborative editing traces to use when benchmarking, comparing and optimising text based CRDTs[1]. The automerge-perf editing trace isn’t enough on its own. And we’re increasingly converging on a format for multi user concurrent editing traces too[2]. It’d be great to add some rich text editing traces in the mix if you’re interested in recording something, so we can also compare how peritext performs in different systems.
Anyway, welcome to the community! Love to have more implementations around!
-
Cloudant/IBM back off from FoundationDB based CouchDB rewrite
So yes, a particularly large document is not the norm but it can happen.
JavaScript CRDTs can be quite performant, see the Yjs benchmarks: https://github.com/dmonad/crdt-benchmarks
- Automerge: A JSON-like data structure (a CRDT) that can be modified concurrently
- Automerge: a new foundation for collaboration software [video]
- Show HN: SyncedStore CRDT – build multiplayer collaborative apps for React / Vue
- 5000x Faster CRDTs: An Adventure in Optimization
dotted-logootsplit
- Evan Wallace CRDT Algorithms
-
5000x Faster CRDTs: An Adventure in Optimization
Yes, xray was abandoned and teletype is written in JS.
I understand your point and as a researcher and engineer I know your feeling. I took some cautions by using "Some optimizations". I value engineering as much as research and I'm bothered when I heard any side telling the other side that their work is worthless. Your work and the work of Kevin Jahns are very valuable and could improve the way that researchers and engineers do benchmarks.
This is still hard for me to determine when position-based list CRDT (Logoot, LogootSPlit, ...) are better than tombstone-based list CRDT (RGA, RgaSplit, Yata, ...). It could be worth to assess that.
3 year ago I started an update of LogootSplit. The new CRDT is named Dotted LogootSplit [1] and enables delta-synchronizations. The work is not finished: I had other priorities such as writing my thesis... I have to perform some benchmark. However I'm more interested in the hypothetical advantages of Dotted LogootSplit regarding synchronization over unreliable networks. From an engineering point-of-view, I'm using a partially-persistent-capable AVL tree [2]. Eventually I would like to switch to a partially-persistent-capable b-tree. Unfortunately writing a paper is very time consuming, and time is missing.
I still stick with JS/TS because in my viewpoint Wasm is not mature yet. Ideally, I would like to use a language that compiles both to JS and Wasm. Several years ago I welcomed Rust with a lot of enthusiasm. Now I'm doubtful about Rust due to the inherent complexity of the language.
[1] https://github.com/coast-team/dotted-logootsplit/tree/dev
What are some alternatives?
automerge - A JSON-like data structure (a CRDT) that can be modified concurrently by different users, and merged again automatically.
diamond-types - The world's fastest CRDT. WIP.
crdt-woot - Implementation of collaborative editing algorithm CRDT WOOT.
electric - Local-first sync layer for web and mobile apps. Build reactive, realtime, local-first apps directly on Postgres.
SyncedStore - SyncedStore CRDT is an easy-to-use library for building live, collaborative applications that sync automatically.
teletype-crdt - String-wise sequence CRDT powering peer-to-peer collaborative editing in Teletype for Atom.
y-crdt - Rust port of Yjs
cow-list - Copy-On-Write iterable list
automerge-rs - Rust implementation of automerge [Moved to: https://github.com/automerge/automerge]
peritext - A CRDT for asynchronous rich-text collaboration, where authors can work independently and then merge their changes.