shoney/writeonce
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
writeonce/bench/compare/go-sqlite
History
shoney.arickathil a8829232dc docs: perf-targets register — measured optimization candidates 
- target 1: write path (update-through-query re-probe, triple index
  walk, per-field encode, whole-row WAL update record) — re-measure
  after 23, then decide
- targets 2-4 recorded with owners (DB-RPC by design/24, mutex inbox
  /31, fsync bound /23)
- board pending + comparison README link the register

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-22 17:19:46 +02:00
..
go-sqlite bench: go-sqlite comparison harness + first numbers 2026-08-22 17:12:16 +02:00
go.mod bench: go-sqlite comparison harness + first numbers 2026-08-22 17:12:16 +02:00
go.sum bench: go-sqlite comparison harness + first numbers 2026-08-22 17:12:16 +02:00
main.go bench: go-sqlite comparison harness + first numbers 2026-08-22 17:12:16 +02:00
README.md docs: perf-targets register — measured optimization candidates 2026-08-22 17:19:46 +02:00

README.md

go-sqlite — the comparison harness

Go (database/sql + mattn/go-sqlite3, cgo) mirroring docs/examples/db-bench's schema and modes line-for-line, so the numbers align column-for-column. Not a gate — a reference point; SQLite is the honest peer (embedded, single-writer, WAL, same durability knob).

Run: go build -o go-sqlite . && ./go-sqlite ram 20000 / ./go-sqlite durable 20000 <ext4-dir> — a tmpfs dir makes fsync free and the durable numbers a lie (measured: 122k/s on /tmp vs 3.1k/s on ext4; the campaign's own trap, re-confirmed).

Measured 2026-08-22 (N=20k, same machine, ext4, single-shard vs single-conn)

metric writeonce Go+SQLite ratio
ram seed inserts/s 245,188 296,965 sqlite ×1.2
ram read ops/s (p50µs) 1,097,574 (1) 429,645 (2) wo ×2.6
ram query ops/s 989,609 154,559 wo ×6.4
ram write ops/s 195,465 380,069 sqlite ×1.9
durable seed inserts/s (p50µs) 4,460 (~220) 3,113 (241) wo ×1.4
durable write ops/s 2,324 3,257 sqlite ×1.4

Readings, honestly:

  • Reads/queries: writeonce wins 2.6–6.4× — RAM-authoritative rows + the index probe answer without page decoding or a bytecode/VM ↔ cgo boundary; SQLite pays B-tree page traversal + the cgo call per op.
  • ram writes: SQLite wins ~1.9× — writeonce's update path re-runs a probe per update (update-through-query) and its insert encodes slots per field; SQLite's page write is tight. Registered as target 1 in docs/plan/perf-targets.md.
  • durable seed: writeonce wins ~1.4× (append-only WAL + fdatasync vs SQLite WAL frame + FULL sync); durable mixed writes flip back to SQLite ×1.4 — the update's extra probe again.
  • Caveats: different languages (Go harness pays ~1µs cgo per op; wo pays its interpreter), both are the honest end-to-end app-visible cost of their stack. Single connection vs single shard; no concurrency comparison here (SQLite has one writer by design).