←back to thread

Stop syncing everything

(sqlsync.dev)
656 points neilk | 2 comments | 31 Mar 25 17:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.412s | source
Show context
canadiantim ◴[02 Apr 25 02:55 UTC] No.43553276[source]▶
How does this compare with Turso? I know it's mentioned in the article (mainly better support for partial replication and arbitrary schemas), but is there also a deeper architectural departure between the two projects?

Looks really good, great work!

replies(1): >>43553336 #
carlsverre ◴[02 Apr 25 03:18 UTC] No.43553336[source]▶
Thank you! Generally Turso has focused on operating more like a traditional network attached backend. Although that has changed recently with libsql and embedded replicas. I think at this point the main delta is they use traditional wal based physical replication while Graft is something new that permits trivial partial replication. Also, Graft is not exclusive to SQLite. It’s just transactional page addressed object storage with built in replication. I’m excited to see what people build on it.
replies(1): >>43553823 #
1. canadiantim ◴[02 Apr 25 05:09 UTC] No.43553823[source]▶
Thanks! That's a good distinction

Could you theoretically use it for e.g. DuckDB? (maybe not now, but with some work further down the line) What about a graph db like KuzuDB? or is it SQL only?

replies(1): >>43558078 #
2. carlsverre ◴[02 Apr 25 15:52 UTC] No.43558078[source]▶
I think you could! Graft just provides transactions over sets of pages. As long as you can model your data in a compatible way it should work with Graft. A better question is how easy the system allows extensions to intercept filesystem operations. I'd prefer to avoid building a Fuse/NBD layer.

I've filed an issue for both:

https://github.com/orbitinghail/graft/issues/37

https://github.com/orbitinghail/graft/issues/38