5 ms·
I hadn't heard of sqinn before. According to these benchmarks it beats Cgo-based solutions most of the time, which makes it a very interesting candidate. Anyone
by dave78 3y ago
I hadn't heard of sqinn before. According to these benchmarks it beats Cgo-based solutions most of the time, which makes it a very interesting candidate. Anyone have real-world experience using it?
- KomoD 3y ago(Sqinn is made by the same guy that made these benchmarks in case you didn't realize)
- dave78 3y agoI did not notice that, thanks for pointing it out.
- cvilsmeier 3y agoYes, in fact the benchmark started out as a comparison between sqinn and mattn. (There was no modernc at that time.)
- cvilsmeier 3y agoSqinn author here. Yes, sqinn performs quite well compared to the 'standard' mattn driver. The only use case it clearly breaks down is when SELECTing very large (gigabytes) resultsets.
- microtherion 3y agoThat stood out to me as well. Any insights why sqinn and zombie underperform in this case, and is the problem inherent to their design?
- cvilsmeier 3y agoFor sqinn it's because of its design: Shuffling that much data over process boundaries takes time. For zombie, more pprof would be needed to explain the behaviour.
- ncruces 3y agoI would suspect some unnecessary copying. Nothing else explains a “lower level” binding (zombie) performing worse than modernc. My (WASM) binding also has a lower level API. But I worked hard to make database/sql work first class, so I wouldn't expect much improvement.