alt Hacker NewsLooks like the overhead is not insignificant:
Running 100,000 `SELECT 1` queries:
PostgreSQL (localhost): 2.77 seconds
SQLite (in-memory): 0.07 seconds
Replies
This is mostly about thread communication. With SQLite you can guarantee no context switching. Postgres running on the same box gets you close but not all the way. It's still in a different process.
Most important is that that local SQLite gets proper backups, so a restore goes without issues
A total performance delta of <3s on ~300k transactions is indeed the definition of irrelevant.
Also:
> PostgreSQL (localhost): (. .) SQLite (in-memory):
This is a rather silly example. What do you expect to happen to your data when your node restarts?
Your example makes as much sense as comparing Valkey with Postgres and proceed to proclaim that the performance difference is not insignificant.
Would be nice to see PGLite[1] compared too
Why are you comparing PostgreSQL to an in-memory SQLite instead of a file-based one? Wow, memory is faster than disk, who would have thought?
It is insignificant if you're doing 100k queries per day, and you gain a lot for your 3 extra seconds a day.
What a useful "my hello-world script is faster than your hello-world script" example.
I love them both too but that might not be the best metric unless you’re planning to run lots of little read queries. If you’re doing CRUD, simulating that workflow may favor Postgres given the transactional read/write work that needs to take place across multiple concurrent connections.