Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

github.com

1–10 of 91 posts

Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#1
Hi HN! I built Oxyde because I was tired of duplicating my models.

If you use FastAPI, you know the drill. You define Pydantic models for your API, then define separate ORM models for your database, then write converters between them. SQLModel tries to fix this but it's still SQLAlchemy underneath. Tortoise gives you a nice Django-style API but its own model system. Django ORM is great but welded to the framework.

I wanted something simple: your Pydantic model IS your database model. One class, full validation on input and output, native type hints, zero duplication. The query API is Django-style (.objects.filter(), .exclude(), Q/F expressions) because I think it's one of the best designs out there.

Explicit over implicit. I tried to remove all the magic. Queries don't touch the database until you call a terminal method like .all(), .get(), or .first(). If you don't explicitly call .join() or .prefetch(), related data won't be loaded. No lazy loading, no surprise N+1 queries behind your back. You see exactly what hits the database by reading the code.

Type safety was a big motivation. Python's weak spot is runtime surprises, so Oxyde tackles this on three levels: (1) when you run makemigrations, it also generates .pyi stub files with fully typed queries, so your IDE knows that filter(age__gte=...) takes an int, that create() accepts exactly the fields your model has, and that .all() returns list[User] not list[Any]; (2) Pydantic validates data going into the database; (3) Pydantic validates data coming back out via model_validate(). You get autocompletion, red squiggles on typos, and runtime guarantees, all from the same model definition.

Why Rust? Not for speed as a goal. I don't do "language X is better" debates. Each one is good at what it was made for. Python is hard to beat for expressing business logic. But infrastructure stuff like SQL generation, connection pooling, and row serialization is where a systems language makes sense. So I split it: Python handles your models and business logic, Rust handles the database plumbing. Queries are built as an IR in Python, serialized via MessagePack, sent to Rust which generates dialect-specific SQL, executes it, and streams results back. Speed is a side effect of this split, not the goal. But since you're not paying a performance tax for the convenience, here are the benchmarks if curious: https://oxyde.fatalyst.dev/latest/advanced/benchmarks/

What's there today: Django-style migrations (makemigrations / migrate), transactions with savepoints, joins and prefetch, PostgreSQL + SQLite + MySQL, FastAPI integration, and an auto-generated admin panel that works with FastAPI, Litestar, Sanic, Quart, and Falcon (https://github.com/mr-fatalyst/oxyde-admin).

It's v0.5, beta, active development, API might still change. This is my attempt to build the ORM I personally wanted to use. Would love feedback, criticism, ideas.

Docs: https://oxyde.fatalyst.dev/

Step-by-step FastAPI tutorial (blog API from scratch): https://github.com/mr-fatalyst/fastapi-oxyde-example

Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core
github.com

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#2
Lol I never knew django orm is faster than SQLAlchemy. But having used both that makes sense.

> Why Rust? ... Rust handles the database plumbing. Queries are built as an IR in Python, serialized via MessagePack, sent to Rust which generates dialect-specific SQL, executes it, and streams results back. Speed is a side effect of this split, not the goal.

Nice.

So what does it take to deploy this, dependency wise?

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#3

Lol I never knew django orm is faster than SQLAlchemy. But having used both that makes sense. > Why Rust? ... Rust handles the database plumbing. Queries are built as an IR in Python, serialized via MessagePack, sent to Rust which generates dialect-specific SQL, executes it, and streams results back. Speed is a side effect of this split, not the goal. Nice. So what does it take to deploy this, dependency wise?

Just pip install oxyde, that's it. The Rust core (oxyde-core) ships as pre-built wheels for Linux, macOS, and Windows, so no Rust toolchain needed. Python-side dependencies are just pydantic, msgpack, and typer for the CLI. Database drivers are bundled in the Rust core (uses sqlx under the hood), so you don't need to install asyncpg/aiosqlite/etc separately either.

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#4

Lol I never knew django orm is faster than SQLAlchemy. But having used both that makes sense. > Why Rust? ... Rust handles the database plumbing. Queries are built as an IR in Python, serialized via MessagePack, sent to Rust which generates dialect-specific SQL, executes it, and streams results back. Speed is a side effect of this split, not the goal. Nice. So what does it take to deploy this, dependency wise?

> Lol I never knew django orm is faster than SQLAlchemy.

I don’t believe that for a second. Both are wonderful projects, but raw performance was never one of Django ORM’s selling points.

I think its real advantage is making it easy to model new projects and make efficient CRUD calls on those tables. Alchemy’s strong point is “here’s an existing database; let users who grok DB theory query it as efficiently and ergonomically as possible.”

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#5
This sounds great and there's a real gap in the ecosystem for a tool like this. https://sqlmodel.tiangolo.com/ looked promising but it's actually worse than useless because if you add it to your Pydantic models, it disables all validation: https://github.com/fastapi/sqlmodel/issues/52

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#6

This sounds great and there's a real gap in the ecosystem for a tool like this. https://sqlmodel.tiangolo.com/ looked promising but it's actually worse than useless because if you add it to your Pydantic models, it disables all validation: https://github.com/fastapi/sqlmodel/issues/52

Thanks! Yeah, that SQLModel issue is actually one of the things that pushed me to build this. In Oxyde the models are just Pydantic BaseModel subclasses, so validation always works, both on the way in and on the way out via model_validate().

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#7

Lol I never knew django orm is faster than SQLAlchemy. But having used both that makes sense. > Why Rust? ... Rust handles the database plumbing. Queries are built as an IR in Python, serialized via MessagePack, sent to Rust which generates dialect-specific SQL, executes it, and streams results back. Speed is a side effect of this split, not the goal. Nice. So what does it take to deploy this, dependency wise?

> Lol I never knew django orm is faster than SQLAlchemy. I don’t believe that for a second. Both are wonderful projects, but raw performance was never one of Django ORM’s selling points. I think its real advantage is making it easy to model new projects and make efficient CRUD calls on those tables. Alchemy’s strong point is “here’s an existing database; let users who grok DB theory query it as efficiently and ergono…

I was surprised too when I saw the results. The benchmarks test standard ORM usage patterns, not the full power of any ORM. SQLAlchemy is more flexible, but that flexibility comes with some overhead. That said, the ORM layer is rarely the bottleneck when working with a database. The benchmarks were more about making sure that all the Pydantic validation I added comes for free, not about winning a speed race.

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#8
Why would one want to couple these two? Doesn't that couple, say, your API interface with your database schema? Whereas in reality these are separate concepts, even if, yes, sometimes you return a 'user' from an API that looks the same as the 'user' in the database? Honest question, I only just recently got into FastAPI and I was a bit confused at first that yes, it seemed like a lot of duplication, but after a little bit of experience, they are different things that aren't always the same. So what am I missing?

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#9
post #8

Why would one want to couple these two? Doesn't that couple, say, your API interface with your database schema? Whereas in reality these are separate concepts, even if, yes, sometimes you return a 'user' from an API that looks the same as the 'user' in the database? Honest question, I only just recently got into FastAPI and I was a bit confused at first that yes, it seemed like a lot of duplication, but after a littl…

The ORM doesn't force you to use the DB model as your API schema. It's a regular Pydantic BaseModel, so you can make separate request/response schemas whenever you need to. For simple CRUD, using the model directly saves boilerplate. For complex cases, you decouple them as usual. The goal is not one model for everything, it's one contract. Everything speaks Pydantic, whether it's your API layer or your database layer.

Re: Show HN: Oxyde – Pydantic-native async ORM with a Rust core

#10
> But infrastructure stuff like SQL generation, connection pooling, and row serialization is where a systems language makes sense.

not really, what makes sense is being JIT-able and friendly to PyPy.

> Type safety was a big motivation.

> https://oxyde.fatalyst.dev/latest/guide/expressions/#basic-u...

> F("views") + 1

If your typed query sub-language can't avoid stringly references to the field names already defined by the schema objects, then it's the lost battle already.

Post reply on HN