Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

44% Positive

Analyzed from 998 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#sqlite#per#select#polling#process#millisecond#every#kernel#file#cpu

Discussion (37 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

tptacekabout 5 hours ago
"Idle cost is that one lightweight SELECT per millisecond per database — no page-cache pressure, no writer-lock contention, no kernel file watcher in the mix."

I think (respectfully) the LLM that probably wrote this overshot the mark here because busy-polling a select does not actually sound better to me than a "kernel file watcher".

felooboolooombaabout 5 hours ago
"one lightweight SELECT per millisecond"

This reminds me of the teenager who told her dad that she was just a tiny little bit pregnant.

giraffe_ladyabout 4 hours ago
Talking out your ass, a select to this table in sqlite is like a couple hundred microseconds. Fossil uses hundreds of individual queries to build pages and still completes in under 30 ms. It's not exactly charming but it is not a performance problem. https://sqlite.org/np1queryprob.html
rv64imafdcabout 4 hours ago
Hold on -- if it really is "one lightweight SELECT per millisecond", and you're saying a select is "a couple hundred microseconds", say generously 200us?, then you're spending 200us out of every 1000us just selecting. That's a lot of polling!
tptacekabout 4 hours ago
Yeah, again, to be clear: I get how SQLite works and I'm not dunking on the design, I'm just saying the comparison set up on this page snags. It's a classic LLM negated triptych, but "one of these things is not like the other": cache pressure: bad, writer contention: bad, kernel file watcher: ... good, actually? Intuitively seems better than this design?
ncrucesabout 4 hours ago
If you're not making any changes to the database, does the SELECT "kill" you?

And if you are making changes, don't you have to poll regardless after the file watcher wakes you?

For WAL mode, SQLite can probably satisfy this query just by inspecting some shared memory. But it is busy waiting, sure.

d1labout 5 hours ago
Yeah, I had the same instinct - this feels very much like a "nice idea" but the execution falls short. I mean - busily banging on sqlite like this? Shit at that point just use Redis.
koito17about 4 hours ago
For what it's worth, Kine (software that k3s uses to replace etcd with SQL databases) implements etcd watches on SQLite through polling[1]. The reason being that SQLite does not offer NOTIFY/LISTEN like MySQL and Postgres do. Ironically, Honkey attempts implementing NOTIFY/LISTEN through polling.

k3s has been running on my home server for about three years now (using the default SQLite backend), and there doesn't seem to be excessive CPU usage despite dozens of watches existing in the simulated etcd. Of course, this doesn't say much about Honker, but it's nonetheless worth pointing out that sometimes the choice of database forces one towards a certain design.

[1] https://github.com/k3s-io/kine/blob/648a2daa/pkg/logstructur...

tptacekabout 4 hours ago
I'm not even saying it's unworkable, just, my intuition is not that the "lightweight per-millisecond select" is an optimal design.
giraffe_ladyabout 4 hours ago
Really might be in sqlite. I've learned to never trust my intuition about performance with that thing. So many times I've gone to "optimize" something and discovered that the naive hack way I had been doing it was faster anyway. It's built for this sort of bullshit.
andaiabout 4 hours ago
What's the CPU usage? Like 2%?

I had a manual fs polling thing a while back. It was ugly (low time budget, didn't wanna mess with the native watchers), just scanned the whole thing once per second. It averaged out to like 0.3% CPU.

Not elegant, but acceptable for my purposes! (Small-ish directory, and "ping me within a second or two" was realtime enough for this use case.)

booiabout 2 hours ago
i mean, technically this is once per millisecond, so this would happen 1000x more. In your case due to the kernel overhead you would likely not even be able to do it (300% CPU?).

Either way this does seem like a very large overhead due to the fact that there's just no other way to do it without a deeper kernel integration which might be outside the scope of what sqlite is trying to do.

codedokodeabout 1 hour ago
> Once real work flows through a SQLite-backed app, you need a queue. The usual answer is “add Redis + Celery.”

Are they joking? SQLite is usually used for single-process (mutliple threads) applications. The proper way to communicate between threads/processes is a ring buffer, where you allocate structs (allocation typically is incrementing a pointer), and futex/eventfd for notifications (+ some spinlocking to avoid going to kernel when the tasks arrive quickly). Why do you need redis for that? If you need persistent tasks, then you can store them in the table, and still use futex for notifications. This polling is inefficient and they should not make it a library which will cause other lazy developers add it to their app.

> honker polls SQLite’s PRAGMA data_version every millisecond. That’s a monotonic counter SQLite increments on every commit from any connection, journal mode, or process — a ~3 µs read for a precise wake signal

That's 3 ms per second = 0.3% CPU time wasted for every waiting thread.

Like Electron, this feels like written by a web developer and not a real programmer.

Groxxabout 1 hour ago
>That's 3 ms per second = 0.3% CPU time wasted for every waiting thread.

I suspect that's actually "per process, per database (usually 1)", and not based on number of threads or tables. `data_version` semantics mean there's no need for more than one connection polling it, and it's being used as a relatively lightweight "DB has changed, check queues" check (that's pretty much its whole purpose).

Also I believe this is mostly intended for multi-process use, e.g. out-of-process workers, so an in-process dirty tracker (e.g. just check after insert/update/delete) isn't sufficient.

So I do think it's somewhat crazy, but it is at least very simple. fsnotify-like monitoring seems like a fairly obvious improvement tho, not sure why that isn't part of it. Maybe it's slower? I haven't tried to do anything actually-performant-or-reliable with fs notifications, dunno what dragons lie in wait.

deepsunabout 1 hour ago
Nevertheless, expect articles like "We replaced our redis cluster with this simple extension and got it N times faster".
itopaloglu83about 6 hours ago
It’s an interesting approach and can be quite fun to use for new projects.

> How it works: honker polls SQLite’s PRAGMA data_version every millisecond. That’s a monotonic counter SQLite increments on every commit from any connection, journal mode, or process — a ~3 µs read for a precise wake signal.

EvanAndersonabout 6 hours ago
Prior discussion a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47874647
vmspabout 5 hours ago
Reminds me of Litestack for Rails. Eventually, it was abandoned because Rails itself started going all out on SQLite.

https://github.com/oldmoe/litestack

nop_slideabout 5 hours ago
All in*
wmanleyabout 2 hours ago
I've implemented something similar in the past, but using inotify. You need to watch the -wal file for IN_MODIFY. To make it work reliably I found I had to run:

    BEGIN IMMEDIATE TRANSACTION; ROLLBACK;
Otherwise the new changes weren't guaranteed to be visible to the process. I'm sure there's a more targetted approach that would work instead - maybe flock on a particular byte in the `-shm` file.
arlobishabout 5 hours ago
At the end it says: "pg-boss and Oban are the Postgres-side gold standards" -- but Oban supports SQLite now too https://github.com/oban-bg/oban
maxdoabout 3 hours ago
Almost feels like someone is trying to joke about similar postgres application .

To make it look even more absurd . SQLite is not concurrent and you’ll have tons of problems using it practically .

deferredgrantabout 3 hours ago
This seems especially appealing in the awkward middle: too serious for in-memory queues, not big enough to justify Kafka-shaped machinery.
andrewstuartabout 3 hours ago
Suggestion for the author wind back the polling to once a second when nothing is happening.
andrewstuartabout 3 hours ago
I can’t see any benchmarks or performance stats.

I’d like to see messages per second.

Advertisement
canadiantimabout 4 hours ago
Could this work with Turso, the SQLite rust rewrite?