4 ms·
Sqinn 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
by cvilsmeier 3y ago
Sqinn 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.