25 ms·
The real insight here is recognizing when network latency is your bottleneck. For many workloads, even a mediocre local database beats a great remote one. The q
by badmonster 10mo ago
The real insight here is recognizing when network latency is your bottleneck. For many workloads, even a mediocre local database beats a great remote one. The question isn't "which database is best" but "does my architecture need to cross network boundaries at all?"
- andersmurphy 10mo ago(author here) yes 100% this. This was never mean't to be a SQLite vs Postgres article per say, more about the fundamental limitations of the network databases in some contexts. Admittedly, at times I felt I struggle to convey this in the article.
- slashdave 10mo agoSure. Now keep everything in memory and use redis or memcache. Easy to get performance if you change the rules.
- koakuma-chan 10mo agoYou can use SQLite for persistence and a hash map as cache. Or just go for Mongo since it's web scale.
- Yodan2025 10mo agoyep, then add an AWS worker in-between
- SJC_Hacker 10mo agoSQLite can also do in memory
- slashdave 10mo agoYeah, very good point. It all comes down to requirements. If you require persistence, then we can start talking about redundancy and backup, and then suddenly this performance metric becomes far less relevant.
- andersmurphy 10mo agoBackups are to the second with litestream.
- runako 10mo agoSo much this. My inner perf engineer shudders every time I see one of these "modern" architectures that involve databases sited hundreds of miles from the application servers.
- andersmurphy 10mo agoThis article is very much a reaction to that. The problem is the problem as Mike Acton would say.