4 ms·

Suprised none used it as a foundation for a NewSQL DB, the thing is battle tested and actively developed by Apple and Snowflake.

by qaq 3y ago

endisneigh 3y ago
There’s https://www.tigrisdata.com/ https://www.tigrisdata.com/ It’s similar to mongo (it’s nosql)
- eatonphil 3y ago
  Not a NewSQL database though as GP mentioned. I don't think Tigris has a SQL layer.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Yes I know. I explicitly said it was similar to mongo. Just responding to the bit that it’s battle tested and used as a foundation (no pun intended) for another db. As far as I know it’s the only database that has a company around it that is using FDB
- qaq 3y ago
  there was poc of sqlite on top of FDB. There is also sql layer that Apple did not open source that they use at scale. Just seems a wasted opportunity.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    It’s because you introduce a lot of latency. Cockroachdb for example (which is a great db) has a lot of latency compared to Postgres. At the time of its release it was probably hard to justify having an order of magnitude more latency than competitors (of course they were not fault tolerant, but still).
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      hypothetically, you can run cocroach with replication factor 1, and have also low latency and apples to apples comparison.
canadiantim 3y ago
I know some people have had success using FoundationDB as a KV store with SurrealDB[1] [1] https://github.com/orgs/surrealdb/discussions/25 https://github.com/orgs/surrealdb/discussions/25
- qaq 3y ago
  thats a document-graph database though
danpalmer 3y ago
I think I remember the FDB team developing one that was closed source back before their acquisition. I thought the business model was going to be open core and closed, paid, layers on top. I seem to remember them benchmarking the SQL layer and it being highly performant still, despite the complexity it added. Maybe this thing still exists in close source form at Apple? It wouldn't surprise me if it does and forms the basis of a Spanner alternative, they're big enough to need it. Or maybe they canned it pre/post acquisition. Edit: ah, you've already mentioned the closed source layer that exists at Apple. There we go!

Suprised none used it as a foundation for a NewSQL DB, the thing is battle tested and actively developed by Apple and Snowflake.

by qaq 3y ago

Suprised none used it as a foundation for a NewSQL DB, the thing is battle tested and actively developed by Apple and Snowflake.

endisneigh 3y ago

There’s https://www.tigrisdata.com/ https://www.tigrisdata.com/ It’s similar to mongo (it’s nosql)

eatonphil 3y ago
Not a NewSQL database though as GP mentioned. I don't think Tigris has a SQL layer.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Yes I know. I explicitly said it was similar to mongo. Just responding to the bit that it’s battle tested and used as a foundation (no pun intended) for another db. As far as I know it’s the only database that has a company around it that is using FDB
qaq 3y ago
there was poc of sqlite on top of FDB. There is also sql layer that Apple did not open source that they use at scale. Just seems a wasted opportunity.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  It’s because you introduce a lot of latency. Cockroachdb for example (which is a great db) has a lot of latency compared to Postgres. At the time of its release it was probably hard to justify having an order of magnitude more latency than competitors (of course they were not fault tolerant, but still).
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    hypothetically, you can run cocroach with replication factor 1, and have also low latency and apples to apples comparison.

canadiantim 3y ago

I know some people have had success using FoundationDB as a KV store with SurrealDB[1] [1] https://github.com/orgs/surrealdb/discussions/25 https://github.com/orgs/surrealdb/discussions/25

qaq 3y ago
thats a document-graph database though

danpalmer 3y ago

I think I remember the FDB team developing one that was closed source back before their acquisition. I thought the business model was going to be open core and closed, paid, layers on top. I seem to remember them benchmarking the SQL layer and it being highly performant still, despite the complexity it added. Maybe this thing still exists in close source form at Apple? It wouldn't surprise me if it does and forms the basis of a Spanner alternative, they're big enough to need it. Or maybe they canned it pre/post acquisition. Edit: ah, you've already mentioned the closed source layer that exists at Apple. There we go!