4 ms·
I'm interested in this, too. I can totally see how not having to manage a standalone RDBMS makes sense. But, what's the real-world advantage over something lik
by adlpz 4y ago
I'm interested in this, too.
I can totally see how not having to manage a standalone RDBMS makes sense. But, what's the real-world advantage over something like SQLite?
I mean, the idea of an in-memory relational engine for things like games or embedded totally makes sense, but this seems to target large datasets and deep analysis.
As far as I understand with this model you pretty much re-ingest data from the "raw" source on startup every time. Is this correct?
Judging by the rise on interest I'm sure there's an obvious use case I'm not seeing either.
- shanipribadi 4y agothink BI tools, analytics dashboards for exploratory analysis, or even just exploratory analysis on the terminal with it's rich query capabilities. you can keep analytics data in SQLite, but DuckDB will process it faster/easier for the analytics use cases.
- smt88 4y ago> think BI tools, analytics dashboards for exploratory analysis, or even just exploratory analysis on the terminal with it's rich query capabilities I thought about that, but I'd never use DuckDB for it because DuckDB is locked into a single process. I can't figure out a benefit of being suck with one core when I always have between 2 and 32 available to me.
- 1egg0myegg0 4y agoDuckDB uses all of your cores! It just uses threads, not processes!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- smt88 4y ago> But, what's the real-world advantage over something like SQLite? This very specific question is what I'm trying to understand. SQLite can be run in memory and as a temporary store.
- nattaylor 4y agoDuckdb excels at OLAP workloads that SQLite would choke on