4 ms·

> Where's the source code for that? Closed. It's backing Hekaton in MS SQL and some features of Azure DocumentDB. While there are many systems in the literatu

> Where's the source code for that? Closed. It's backing Hekaton in MS SQL and some features of Azure DocumentDB. While there are many systems in the literature that demonstrate some variation of lock free log and indirection map, they're all either research demonstration codebases or closed source to the best of my knowledge. The reason I have an axe to grind here is I think the generalizations around LMDB made by you and others are making this situation worse, by convincing people that haven't read the last few years of literature that LMDB's design is all there is. LMDB is great but narrow. It has no answer for many workloads. It's inevitable that better things will be devised. I want those things to be FOSS. Do the over-reaching and over-simplifying comments about LMDB make that more or less likely?

erichocean 10y ago
> I think the generalizations around LMDB made by you and others are making this situation worse Fair enough. For anyone else following, @jasonwatkinspdx is correct that LMDB is not the right (= best available today) choice for certain workloads. I personally used TrailDB for event traces and if I needed prefix compression on keys (like the CockroachDB team), RocksDB would be an arguably better choice. What I don't agree with is that LMDB's existence or users are causing open source database research to stagnate. Quite the contrary, I think the benefits of LMDB's architecture have not yet been fully realized and I would love to see more research be done to improve/extend it. Most of the research action today (at least to me) seems focused on making log-structure merge trees and variations thereof less sucky at the margin instead of identifying what makes LMDB's design actually tick and then improving on it. There's still a lot of low-hanging fruit in the LMDB architecture waiting to be explored.
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
  Thanks for a really civil reply to what was admittedly a pretty barbed comment on my part. I wasn't aware of TrailDB, I'll check it out. Thanks!

erichocean 10y ago

> I think the generalizations around LMDB made by you and others are making this situation worse Fair enough. For anyone else following, @jasonwatkinspdx is correct that LMDB is not the right (= best available today) choice for certain workloads. I personally used TrailDB for event traces and if I needed prefix compression on keys (like the CockroachDB team), RocksDB would be an arguably better choice. What I don't agree with is that LMDB's existence or users are causing open source database research to stagnate. Quite the contrary, I think the benefits of LMDB's architecture have not yet been fully realized and I would love to see more research be done to improve/extend it. Most of the research action today (at least to me) seems focused on making log-structure merge trees and variations thereof less sucky at the margin instead of identifying what makes LMDB's design actually tick and then improving on it. There's still a lot of low-hanging fruit in the LMDB architecture waiting to be explored.

jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
Thanks for a really civil reply to what was admittedly a pretty barbed comment on my part. I wasn't aware of TrailDB, I'll check it out. Thanks!