metrics VS too-many-lists

It's worth keeping an eye on Diesel's metrics suite (https://github.com/diesel-rs/metrics) as well; I found and fixed some suboptimal buffering that was affecting performance.

See here for some numbers. The relevant code lives inside the diesel github repository. Please also keep in mind that these are just numbers and you should run those these on your own and also run tests with your actual work load.

Performance is worse than in comparable frameworks

For the database part you might want to checkout a crate that's not based on sqlx as sqlx is known for providing non-optimal performance for the sqlite backend. rusqlite or diesel perform much better for this use case.

No it will likely not be less performant. See these numbers for some benchmark results for numbers. (As always with benchmarks: Please don't trust my numbers. To be sure you need to do your own benchmarks with your own use-case)

See here for some benchmark results. The benchmarks itself are in the diesel repository. Otherwise I believe there are numbers in the techempower benchmarks as well, although that includes other factors .

I'm developing a Rust web server backend in Axum that uses Postgres and performance will be pretty important since I plan to run it on one server for as long as possible. It seems like the postgres crate is about 2x faster than sqlx, and the postgres repository seems pretty active still.

Congratulations to the release. I know all of this is hard work. I would like to invite you to submit a ormlite implementation to the diesel benchmark collection. As soon as that's merged you will get regular reports here. The relevant code is here in the diesel repository.

In that case you may be interested in the metrics for different database libraries. diesel is doing rather well at the moment. sqlx is in the middle of a large rewrite that should improve performance, so we'll see how it compares after that

See here for some benchmark results for the diesel repository. Please keep in mind that as always with benchmarks, these numbers are not necessarily true for your usecase. Be sure to checkout at least the benchmark code and draw your own conclusions from there.

You seem to have a preset opinion, and I'm not sure you are interested in re-evaluating it. So this is not written to change your mind.

I've developed production code in C, C++, Rust, and several other languages. And while like pretty much everything, there are situations where it's not a good fit, I find that the solutions tend to be the most robust and require the least post release debugging in Rust. That's my personal experience. It's not hard data. And yes occasionally it's annoying to please the compiler, and if there were no trait constraints or borrow rules, those instances would be easier. But way more often in my experience the compiler complained because my initial solution had problems I didn't realize before. So for me, these situations have been about going from building it the way I wanted to -> compiler tells me I didn't consider an edge case -> changing the implementation and or design to account for that edge case. Also using one example, where is Rust is notoriously hard and or un-ergonomic to use, and dismissing the entire language seems premature to me. For those that insist on learning Rust by implementing a linked list there is https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/.

Advent of Code was okay until I encounterd a problem that required a graph, tree or linked list to solve, where I hit a wall. Most coding exercises are similar--those requiring arrays and hashmaps and sets are okay, but complex data structures are a PITA. (There is an online course dedicated to linked lists in Rust but I couldn't grok it either). IMO you should simply skip problems that you can't solve with your current knowledge level and move on.

I feel obligated to point to the original cannon literature: https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

I started learning Rust and like how the compiler is fussy about things. My plan was to implement the data structures I knew, but I got stuck at the singly linked list's remove() method. I've read the book as well, but I have no clue how to simplify this further:

My impression from the article is that Zig provides several different hashtables and not all of them are broken in this way.

This reminds me of Aria's comment in her Rust tutorial https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ about failing to kill LinkedList. One philosophy (and the one Rust chose) for a stdlib is that this is only where things should live when they're so commonly needed that essentially everybody needs them either directly or to talk about. So, HashTable is needed by so much otherwise unrelated software that qualifies, BloomFilter, while it's real useful for some people, not so much. Aria cleaned out Rust's set of standard library containers before Rust 1.0, trying to keep only those most people would need. LinkedList isn't a good general purpose data structure, but, it was too popular and Aria was not able to remove it.

Having multiple hash tables feels like a win (they're optimized for different purposes) but may cost too much in terms of the necessary testing to ensure they all hit the quality you want.

> Cyclic references can be dealt with runtime safety checks too - like Rc and Weak.

Indeed. Starting out with code sprinkled with Rc, Weak, RefCell, etc is perfectly fine and performance will probably not be worse than in any other safe languages. And if you do this, Rust is pretty close to those languages in ease of use for what are otherwise complex topics in Rust.

A good reference for different approaches is Learn Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

Second, once you've finished something introductory like The Book, read Learning Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists. It really helped me to understand what ownership and borrowing actually mean in practical terms. If you don't mind paying for learning materials, a lot of people recommend Programming Rust, Second Edition by Blandy, Orendorff, and Tindall as either a complement, follow-up, or alternative to The Book.

Learning Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists which highlights a lot of the differences with how you need to structure your code in Rust compared to other languages.