News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Show HN: Ultra-fast, embedded KV store in pure Rust. Parent comment

Re:Show HN: Ultra-fast, embedded KV store in pure Rust by xg15 on Friday August 22, 2025 @11:13AM (#44985613)
Not sure I read that formula right, but isn't the data loss limited to the last 100ms (worst case)?

I don't see many single user/desktop application use cases where that kind of time range would be risky.

Maybe if you used this as the main production database with thousands of concurrent sessions. But that doesn't seem to be their main use case, is it?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: Ultra-fast, embedded KV store in pure Rust by remram on Friday August 22, 2025 @06:36PM (#44990748)
Do you see any single user/desktop application that needs the kind of speed boasted in the README? The one you are trading durability for?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Show HN: Ultra-fast, embedded KV store in pure Rust by mehrant on Saturday August 23, 2025 @03:29PM (#44998469)
The real value isn't just raw speed - it's efficiency.

When your KV operations take 200ns instead of 20μs, you're using 100x less CPU time per operation. This translates to:

  - Running the same workload on smaller/cheaper instances

  - Serving 100x more users on the same hardware

  - Lower cloud bills and better multi-tenancy
For desktop apps, this means your KV store barely touches the CPU, leaving resources for the actual application. For servers, it means one instance can handle what previously required a fleet.

The durability tradeoff makes sense when you realize most KV workloads are derived data that can be rebuilt. Why pay 100x the CPU cost for fsync-level durability on data that doesn't need it?

[ Parent | on HN ]