Show HN: I benchmarked six Go SQLite drivers (found you don't need cgo anymore)

Re:Show HN: I benchmarked six Go SQLite drivers (found you d... by cvilsmeier on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @09:10AM (#38627582)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: I benchmarked six Go SQLite drivers (found you d... by microtherion on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @10:34AM (#38628881)

That stood out to me as well. Any insights why sqinn and zombie underperform in this case, and is the problem inherent to their design?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: I benchmarked six Go SQLite drivers (found you d... by cvilsmeier on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @10:48AM (#38629095)

For 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: I benchmarked six Go SQLite drivers (found you d... by ncruces on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @03:51PM (#38633963)

I 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]