Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I don't get how this is comparable to FoundationDB or DenoKV


sort by: page size:

How does it compare to FoundationDB? Nether the paper nor the GitHub page mentioned it.

Why not FoundationDB?

Powered by FoundationDB?

Any comments on how FoundationDB might be the same / different?

Just as an side note, not relevant to anything in particular, Foundation DB itself is open-source (https://www.foundationdb.org/), but the integration layer used by Deno to make it the backend for Deno KV is not.

Although, from reading the Foundation DB docs and checking the Deno KV API, I honestly suspect it is a thin layer.

Self-hosting FDB is somewhat inscrutable though, so their value add is in not having to handle infrastructure while being backed by FDB.


By the way, as long as we're speaking about DB future, did anyone try foundationdb? Does it live up to expectations?

Having looked at FoundationDB a bit it wasn't clear why I would choose it. It has transactions, which is nice, but not that big of a deal despite how much time they put into talking about it. I actually don't even need transactions since all of my writes commute, so it's particularly uninteresting to me.

They say they're fast, but I didn't find a ton of information about that.

Ultimately the sell seemed to be "nosql with transactions" and I just couldn't justify putting more time into it. I did watch their excellent talk on testing, and I respect that they've put that level of effort into it, and it was why I even considered it, but yeah, what am I missing?


This runs on FoundationDB.

Do you think they're using foundationdb?

This looks like it could be a drop in replacement for FoundationDB but I don't see enough documentation on the guarantees they give or limitations. Any more information? Maybe even translated from Chinese?

FoundationDB is not a SQL database either though.

I mean, it's completely different, so it has none of the same problems. It might have different problems of course.

Ironically FoundationDB is a key-value store internally, but you don't get access to that.


What makes the use of FoundationDB special in this case?

That's not the question. A correct answer would be saying what foundationdb does.

Foundationdb is a pretty big thing to open source

Since it doesn't support serializable transactions I'm not sure why FoundationDB would be mentioned as a comparison in the write up. The operations it does support seem to set the bar pretty low as to what to test.

edit: good reply by the founder of YugaByte but for some reason the comment is dead. I have noticed that when founders don't have an account on here and then something comes up where they need to reply their comments are often deaded.


I wonder how this compares to FoundationDB's architecture, which also had an SQL layer on top of a K/V store, and was reportedly slow at SQL queries.

How does this stack up against HBase and Cassandra, which seem to have gotten traction already in the same areas that FoundationDB seems best suited for?

It's more of a database-building toolkit than a storage engine. What you get is a distributed KV store with a strict serializable consistency model (see https://jepsen.io/consistency) and very interesting versionstamp functionality.

What you do not get is a "query language" or indexing.

Yes, there are companies that use FoundationDB as their primary data store. It makes a lot of sense to integrate it directly with the application rather than go through additional layers and a "query language". I am working on adapting my app to use it, and so far very happy with the results.

next

Legal | privacy