shoney.arickathil
5cf979e405
- mirrors db-bench schema/modes line-for-line; ram + durable (FULL sync) flavors; tmpfs-fsync trap re-confirmed (122k/s lie vs 3.1k/s ext4) - wo wins reads x2.6, query x6.4, durable seed x1.4; sqlite wins ram writes x1.9, durable mixed writes x1.4 (update-through-query re-probe = named optimization target) Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
40 lines
2 KiB
Markdown
40 lines
2 KiB
Markdown
# 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. A real optimization target,
|
||
now measured.
|
||
- **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).
|