noria VS rfcs

> Automatically managed, application-transparent, physical denormalisation entirely managed by the database is something I am very, very interested in.

Sounds a bit like Noria: https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria

It feels more than a little bit coincidental to call it Noria when https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria exists (and has been posted about here on HN)... especially with the whole bit about incrementally computing changes.

Is this similar in spirit to Noria?

https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria

I assume you have studied Noria? https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria

If you want to look how databases are implemented in rust try https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria

Only tangentially related, but I wondered what were the difference between ReadySet and Noria, and they address this exact question in their repository I'm really glad to know that the ideas behind Noria didn't die when Noria was abandoned after /u/jonhoo graduated.

:wave: Author of the paper this work is based on here.

I'm so excited to see dynamic, partially-stateful data-flow for incremental materialized view maintenance becoming more wide-spread! I continue to think it's a _great_ idea, and the speed-ups (and complexity reduction) it can yield are pretty immense, so seeing more folks building on the idea makes me very happy.

The PlanetScale blog post references my original "Noria" OSDI paper (https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/noria:osdi18.pdf), but I'd actually recommend my PhD thesis instead (https://jon.thesquareplanet.com/papers/phd-thesis.pdf), as it goes much deeper about some of the technical challenges and solutions involved. It also has a chapter (Appendix A) that covers how it all works by analogy, which the less-technical among the audience may appreciate :) A recording of my thesis defense on this, which may be more digestible than the thesis itself, is also online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GctxvSPIfr8, as well as a shorter talk from a few years earlier at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s19G6n0UjsM. And the Noria research prototype (written in Rust) is on GitHub: https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria.

As others have already mentioned in the comments, I co-founded ReadySet (https://readyset.io/) shortly after graduating specifically to build off of Noria, and they're doing amazing work to provide these kinds of speed-ups for general-purpose relational databases. If you're using one of those, it's worth giving ReadySet a look to get these kinds of speedups there! It's also source-available @ https://github.com/readysettech/readyset if you're curious.

It seems similar to MIT's Noria [1]

> Noria is a new streaming data-flow system designed to act as a fast storage backend for read-heavy web applications based on Jon Gjengset's Phd Thesis, as well as this paper from OSDI'18. It acts like a database, but precomputes and caches relational query results so that reads are blazingly fast. Noria automatically keeps cached results up-to-date as the underlying data, stored in persistent base tables, change. Noria uses partially-stateful data-flow to reduce memory overhead, and supports dynamic, runtime data-flow and query change.

[1] https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria

Materialize is really neat, also checkout https://github.com/mit-pdos/noria. It inverts the query problem and processes the data on insert. Exactly like what most applications end up doing using a no-sql solution.

RFC: Add large language models to Rust

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603

Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582

Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.

Literally has nothing to do with memory management.

Congrats!

> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.

Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".

Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.

> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)

> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.

This is great to see though!

I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.

While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537

How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.

In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...

I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899

Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.

Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].

Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)

You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html

[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...

[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...

[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...

[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469