tg VS Tile38

Thanks for sharing! I've looked into usearch before, it's really sleek, especially all their language bindings. Though I want sqlite-vec to have total control over what stays in-memory vs on-disk during searches, and most vector search libraries like usearch/hnswlib/faiss/annoy either always store in-memory or don't offer hooks for other storage systems.

Additionally, sqlite-vec takes advantage of some SQLite specific APIs, like BLOB I/O [0], which I hope would speed things up a ton. It's a ton more work, coming up with new storage solutions that are backed by SQLite shadow tables, but I think it'll be work it!

And I also like how sqlite-vec is just a single sqlite-vec.c file. It makes linking + cross-compiling super easy, and since I got burned relying on heavy C++ dependencies with sqlite-vss, a no-dependency rule feels good. Mostly inspired by SQLite single-file sqlite3.c amalgamation, and Josh Baker's single file C projects like tg[1].

[0] https://www.sqlite.org/c3ref/blob_open.html

[1] https://github.com/tidwall/tg

I can't stop precision loss in all cases, but I do my darnedest to avoid loss when it causes false positives, especially for stuff like intersect detection code. For example the collinear [1] function looks really big for a seemingly simple operation, but there are extra checks built in to check for precision loss and in the cases of compiler associate math issues (like a user borking a build with -ffast-math).

I'm sure it's not all perfect but I feel pretty good about it overall. It certainly helps that much of the logic derived from the Tile38 [2] project, which has 8 years of use in production. I ported many of tests too, which makes me warm and fuzzy every time they pass.

[1] https://github.com/tidwall/tg/blob/v0.1.0/tg.c#L389

[2] https://github.com/tidwall/tile38

Experimental format to help readability of a long rant:

1.

According to the OP, there's a "terrifying tale of VACUUM in PostgreSQL," dating back to "a historical artifact that traces its roots back to the Berkeley Postgres project." (1986?)

2.

Maybe the whole idea of "use X, it has been battle-tested for [TIME], is robust, all the bugs have been and keep being fixed," etc., should not really be that attractive or realistic for at least a large subset of projects.

3.

In the case of Postgres, on top of piles of "historic code" and cruft, there's the fact that each user of Postgres installs and runs a huge software artifact with hundreds or even thousands of features and dependencies, of which every particular user may only use a tiny subset.

4.

In Kleppmann's DDOA [1], after explaining why the declarative SQL language is "better," he writes: "in databases, declarative query languages like SQL turned out to be much better than imperative query APIs." I find this footnote to the paragraph a bit ironic: "IMS and CODASYL both used imperative query APIs. Applications typically used COBOL code to iterate over records in the database, one record at a time." So, SQL was better than CODASYL and COBOL in a number of ways... big surprise?

Postgres' own PL/pgSQL [2] is a language that (I imagine) most people would rather NOT use: hence a bunch of alternatives, including PL/v8, on its own a huge mass of additional complexity. SQL is definitely "COBOLESQUE" itself.

5.

Could we come up with something more minimal than SQL and looking less like COBOL? (Hopefully also getting rid of ORMs in the process). Also, I have found inspiring to see some people creating databases for themselves. Perhaps not a bad idea for small applications? For instance, I found BuntDB [3], which the developer seems to be using to run his own business [4]. Also, HYTRADBOI? :-) [5].

6.

A usual objection to use anything other than a stablished relational DB is "creating a database is too difficult for the average programmer." How about debugging PostgreSQL issues, developing new storage engines for it, or even building expertise on how to set up the instances properly and keep it alive and performant? Is that easier?

I personally feel more capable of implementing a small, well-tested, problem-specific, small implementation of a B-Tree than learning how to develop Postgres extensions, become an expert in its configuration and internals, or debug its many issues.

Another common opinion is "SQL is easy to use for non-programmers." But every person that knows SQL had to learn it somehow. I'm 100% confident that anyone able to learn SQL should be able to learn a simple, domain-specific, programming language designed for querying DBs. And how many of these people that are not able to program imperatively would be able to read a SQL EXPLAIN output and fix deficient queries? If they can, that supports even more the idea that they should be able to learn something different than SQL.

----

1: https://dataintensive.net/

2: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/plpgsql-examples.html

3: https://github.com/tidwall/buntdb

4: https://tile38.com/

5: https://www.hytradboi.com/

I actually worked on a project that did this. We used a database called "Tile38" [1] which used an R-Tree to make geospatial queries speedy. It was pretty good.

Our dataset was ~150 GiB, I think? All in RAM. Took a while to start the server, as it all came off disk. Could have been faster. (It borrowed Redis's query language, and its storage was just "store the commands the recreate the DB, literally", IIRC. Dead simple, but a lot of slack/wasted space there.)

Overall not a bad database. Latency serving out of RAM was, as one should/would expect, very speedy!

[1]: https://tile38.com/

I ported it from Go and use it for my Tile38 project.