Show HN: AnuDB– Backed on RocksDB, 279x Faster Than SQLite in Parallel Workloads

Re:Show HN: AnuDB– Backed on RocksDB, 279x Faster Than SQLit... by nottorp on Tuesday May 06, 2025 @09:19AM (#43904782)

Are they comparing a nosql database with no search/filtering with a sql database that has those operations by any chance?

And the 279x number is for parallel deletes? If you have to do that many parallel deletes it's probably a maintenance operation and you might as well copy the remaining data out, drop the db and recreate it...

There goes any credibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Show HN: AnuDB– Backed on RocksDB, 279x Faster Than SQLit... by hashmak_jsn on Tuesday May 06, 2025 @11:49AM (#43906471)

Good point — just to clarify, the "279x" number isn’t about parallel deletes. The parallel test runs a mix of operations (insert, query, update, delete) across multiple threads. Each thread works on its own document range to simulate a real-world concurrent workload (like telemetry ingestion).

SQLite (even in WAL mode) hits write lock contention under concurrency, while AnuDB (using RocksDB) handles concurrent writes better due to its design.

Also, AnuDB supports indexing via an API using RocksDB's prefix extractor, so it’s not just a key-value store — basic filtering is supported.

Appreciate the feedback — will revise the post to make this clearer!

[ Parent | on HN ]