RocksDB VS SQLite

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:

If you are into alternative storage engines for SQLite, there is also an LSM (Log-Structured Merge-tree) extension in the main repository that is not announced nor documented but seems to work. It’s based on the SQLite 4 project.

https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/tree/master/ext/lsm1

https://www.charlesleifer.com/blog/lsm-key-value-storage-in-...

The sqlite code base is really well done. Lots of documentation.

https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite

Especially the VM part: https://github.com/spandanb/learndb-py/blob/master/learndb/v...

Compare it with this: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/src/vdbe.c

That's said, I'm curious how complete this LearnDB is. SQLite is hard to read not only it's old but also it covers a lot of SQL and following SQL spec makes hings complicated. SQLite has great test suite so it's nice if you run the suit against this implementation.

Correct, see the github mirror[1]. I don't know how well supported that feature is compared to main branch. If it was completely stable, then it would have already landed in the main stable branch. Clarity about the roadmap of that branch would be nice.

1. https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/tree/begin-concurrent

Including comprehensive comments, documentation and tests in a codebase takes time and effort.

Failing to do so creates code that is very difficult to maintain or for someone new to the codebase to understand.

However, time and effort may not be what the organization wants to pay for, and individuals may view their own incomprehensible code as something like job security, as they can't be replaced by someone else easily.

As an example of complicated code that's still well-documented, the open-source sqlite code is a good example, about 1/4 of the B-tree file is comments, every time a variable is defined there's a short note explaining what it's used for, every function has a comment header that's comprehensive, such that someone new to the codebase could construct a map of how it all works fairly quickly. It's a good model for how to avoid the problem:

https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/src/btree.c