dqlite VS mvsqlite

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.

I’ve been using FDB for toy projects for a while. It’s truly rock solid. That being said, I wish there were more layers.

Ideally someone could implement the firestore or dynamodb api on top.

https://github.com/losfair/mvsqlite

For the rough plan, it's Cloud Backed SQLite meets FoundationDB.

- Oh, and if you're wondering about backup to S3, they have that too: https://github.com/libsql/bottomless

- Uh, sqld can integrated with this https://github.com/losfair/mvsqlite, so now your SQLite is backed by FoundationDB!?

- Meanwhile Litestream exists https://github.com/benbjohnson/litestream/

Shameless plug of my [mvSQLite](https://github.com/losfair/mvsqlite) project here! It's basically another distributed SQLite, but with support for everything expected from a proper distributed database: synchronous replication, strictly serializable transactions, + scalable reads and writes w/ multiple concurrent writers.

This project looks really exciting!

I'm working on mvsqlite [1], a distributed SQLite based on FoundationDB. When doing the VFS integration I have always wanted to patch SQLite itself, but didn't because of uncertainty around correctness of the patched version...

A few features on my wishlist:

1. Asynchronous I/O. mvsqlite is currently doing its own prefetch prediction that is not very accurate. I assume higher layers in SQLite have more information that can help with better prediction.

2. Custom page allocator. SQLite internally uses a linked list to manage database pages - this causes contention on any two transactions that both allocate or free pages.

3. Random ROWID, without the `max(int64)` row trick. Sequentially increasing ROWIDs is a primary source of contention, and causes significant INSERT slowdown in my benchmark [2].

[1] https://github.com/losfair/mvsqlite

[2] https://univalence.me/posts/mvsqlite-bench-20220930

That DynamoDB VFS looks cool! I agree that the VFS api makes one think about plenty of crazy ideas. Someone is working on a VFS based on Foundation DB[0] that looks very promising. It was recently discussed here[1]

[0]: https://github.com/losfair/mvsqlite

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32269287