Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamzwasserman | Hacker News Reader

IMHO breaking free of SQLite's proprietary test suite is a bigger driver than C vs Rust. Turso's Limbo announcement says exactly that: they couldn't confidently make large architectural changes without access to the tests. The rewrite lets them build Deterministic Simulation Testing from scratch, which they argue can exceed SQLite's reliability by simulating unlikely scenarios and reproducing failures deterministically.

View on HN

Having seen way too many "we're going to rewrite $xyz but make it BETTERER!!", I don't give this one much chance of success. SQLite is a high-quality product with a quarter-century of development history and huge amounts of effort, both by the devs and via public use, of testing. So this let's-reinvent-it-in-Rust effort will have to beat an already very good product that's had a staggering amount of development effort and testing put into it which, if the devs do manage to get through it all, will end up being about the same as the existing thing but written in a language that most of the SQLite targets don't work with. I just can't see this going anywhere outside of hardcore Rust devotees who want to use a Rust SQLite even thought it still hasn't got past the fixer-upper stage.

How do you want to define success for this project relative to SQLite? Because they already have concurrent writes working for their rust implementation. It's currently marked experimental, but it does already work. And for a lot of people, that's all they want or need.

https://turso.tech/blog/beyond-the-single-writer-limitation-...

fragmede is correct.

I needed SQLite as a central system DB but couldn't live with single-writer. So I built a facade that can target SQLite, Postgres, or Turso's Rust rewrite through one API. The useful part: mirroring. The facade writes to two backends simultaneously so I can diff SQLite vs Turso behavior and catch divergences before production. When something differs, I either file upstream or add an equalizing shim. Concurrent writes already working is a reasonable definition of success. It's why I'm using it.

How common is this as a use case though? I wouldn't normally expect to see "SQLite" and "central system DB" in the same sentence. SQL Server, Postgres, 'Orable, MySQL, DB2, but not really something targeted for small-footprint lightweight use.

SQLite is battle-tested in production at massive scale. Discord handles millions of concurrent users with SQLite clusters. WhatsApp served 900 million users before Facebook acquired them, running on SQLite for message storage. The "lightweight" perception is outdated.

Who knows, maybe 5 years from now, you will say to yourself: that crazy wasn't so crazy after all!

> IMHO breaking free of SQLite's proprietary test suite is a bigger driver than C vs Rust.

I don't understand this claim, given the breadth and depth of SQLite's public domain TCL Tests. Can someone explain to me how this isn't pure FUD?

"There are 51445 distinct test cases, but many of the test cases are parameterized and run multiple times (with different parameters) so that on a full test run millions of separate tests are performed." - https://sqlite.org/testing.html

The irony is if they only had the public domain tests, no one would complain even though it would mean the exact same number of open source tests.

That’s like if I gave you half the dictionary and then said it’s ironic that if there really weren’t any letters after “M” you wouldn’t be complaining.

The next bullet point:

> 2. The TH3 test harness is a set of proprietary tests…

Of course, but how does that make the allegation not FUD?

I’m confused, the statement is that SQLite has a proprietary test suite? It does. Where’s the FUD?

Turso tried to add features to SQLite in libsqlite but there were bugs/divergent behaviour that they couldn’t reconcile without the full test suite.

The test suite that the actual SQLite developers use to develop SQLite is not open-source. 51445 open-source test cases is a big number but doesn't really mean much, particularly given that evidently the SQLite developers themselves don't consider it enough to provide adequate coverage.

There are also non-public tests.

SQLite's test suite is infamously gigantic. It has two parts: the public TCL tests you're referencing, and a much larger proprietary test suite that's 100x bigger and covers all the edge cases that actually matter in production. The public tests are tiny compared to what SQLite actually runs internally.

...why does sqlite have proprietary tests??

So that enhancements only be practical by hiring the original team.

It allows the code to be fully public domain, so you can use it anywhere, while very strongly discouraging random people from forking it, patching it, etc. Even still, the tests that are most applicable to ensuring that SQLite has been built correctly on a new compiler/architecture/environment are made open source (this is great!) while those that ensure that SQLite has been implemented correctly are proprietary (you only need these if you wanted to extend SQLite's functionality to do something different).

This allows for a business model for the authors to provide contracted support for the product, and keeping SQLite as a product/brand without having to compete with an army of consultants wanting to compete and make money off of their product, startups wanting to fork it, rename it, and sell it to you, etc.

It's pretty smart and has, for a quarter century, resulted in a high quality piece of software that is sustainable to produce and maintain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com