Hacker News Reader

Comment by eurleif | Hacker News Reader

Because it doesn't make a difference, because `SELECT 1` doesn't need to touch the database:

    Running 100,000 `SELECT 1` queries:
    PostgreSQL (localhost): 2.71 seconds
    SQLite (in-memory): 0.07 seconds
    SQLite (tempfile): 0.07 seconds

(https://gist.github.com/leifkb/d8778422d450d9a3f103ed43258cc...)

View on HN

Why are you doing meaningless microbenchmarks?

Are you claiming that this does not show the speed difference between socket vs in process communication?

> Because it doesn't make a difference, because `SELECT 1` doesn't need to touch the database:

I hope you understand that your claim boils down to stating that SQLite is faster at doing nothing at all, which is a silly case to make.

The original claim being discussed is about the overhead of an in-process database vs. a database server in a separate process, not about whether SQLite or PostgreSQL have a faster database engine.

Queries for small SaaS are usually in the thousands of records, if not hundreds.

How about pg on Unix socket?

    Running 100,000 `SELECT 1` queries:
    PostgreSQL (localhost): 2.84 seconds
    PostgreSQL (Unix socket): 1.93 seconds
    SQLite (in-memory): 0.07 seconds
    SQLite (tempfile): 0.06 seconds

(https://gist.github.com/leifkb/b940b8cdd8e0432cc58670bbc0c33...)

seems about right

You appear to have benchmarked how quickly Python can access memory vs how quickly Python can open and close a socket. I'm not sure the DBs were required in any way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com