dqlite VS RocksDB

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.

RocksDB: A high-performance embedded database optimized for multi-core CPUs and fast storage like SSDs. Its use of a log-structured merge-tree (LSM tree) makes it suitable for applications requiring high throughput and efficient storage, such as streaming data processing.

[RocksDB](https://rocksdb.org/) isn’t a distributed storage system, fwiw. It’s an embedded KV engine similar to LevelDB, LMDB, or really sqlite (though that’s full SQL, not just KV)

To output the top 3 rocks, our engine has to first store all the rocks in some sorted way. To do this, we of course picked RocksDB, an embedded lexicographically sorted key-value store, which acts as the sorting operation's persistent state. In our RocksDB state, the diffs are keyed by the value of weight, and since RocksDB is sorted, our stored diffs are automatically sorted by their weight.

The in-memory version of Memgraph uses Delta storage to support multi-version concurrency control (MVCC). However, for larger-than-memory storage, we decided to use the Optimistic Concurrency Control Protocol (OCC) since we assumed conflicts would rarely happen, and we could make use of RocksDB’s transactions without dealing with the custom layer of complexity like in the case of Delta storage.

I was looking at https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/ but it seems to not allow queries by value, as my last requirmenet.

Tuning RocksDB well is a very very hard challenge, and one that I am happy to not do day to day anymore. RocksDB is very powerful but it comes with other very sharp edges. Compaction is one of those, and all answers are likely workload dependent.

If you are worried about write amplification then leveled compactions are sub-optimal. I would try the universal compaction.

- https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki/Universal-Compactio...

It's fairly challenging to write a KV database, and takes several years of development to get the balance right between performance and reliability and avoiding data loss. Maybe read through the documentation for RocksDB https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/wiki/RocksDB-Overview and watch the video on why it was developed and that may give you an impression of what is involved.

LMDB is much more sain in the sense that it supports real ACID transactions instead of savepoints for RocksDB. The latter is heavy and consumes a lot more memory for a lot less read throughput. However, RocksDB has a much better parallel and concurrent write story, where you can merge entries with merge functions and therefore write from multiple CPUs.

https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues?q=is%3Aissue+clic...

Here are some bugs in JeMalloc: