rudedogg 3 days ago

From what I’ve read there’s a pretty sizable performance gap between SQLite and pglite (with SQLite being much faster).

I’m excited to see things improve though. Having a more traditional database, with more features and less historical weirdness on the client would be really cool.

Edit: https://pglite.dev/benchmarks actually not looking too bad.. I might have something new to try!

[removed] 3 days ago
[deleted]
causalscience 3 days ago

[flagged]

  • avhception 3 days ago

    Did you actually click the link? pglite aims to be embeddable just like sqlite.

  • roywiggins 3 days ago

    pglite runs in wasm so it should be possible to embed it where you want, like sqlite?

    • duped 3 days ago

      Why would I want wasm for an embedded database? It's not a feature, quite an anti-feature frankly.

      edit: it looks like pglite is only useful for web apps

      • 9rx 3 days ago

        > it looks like pglite is only useful for web apps

        Where else other than web apps (herein meaning network-attached database servers that, more often than not, although not strictly so, use HTTP as the transport layer) are at meaningful risk of bumping up against SQLite write contention? If your mobile/desktop app has that problem, it is much more likely that you have a fundamental design issue and not a scaling problem.

      • evertheylen 3 days ago

        Not really, I used it to develop against a "real" postgres database for a node backend app. It worked fine and made it pretty easy to spin up a development/CI environment anywhere you want. Only when inserting large amounts of data you start to notice it is slower than native postgres. I had to stop using it because we required the postgis extension (although there is some movement on that front!).

  • [removed] 3 days ago
    [deleted]