181–190 of 247 posts
Always happy to see more server SQLite/Litestream adoption which we've also been using to build our new Apps with. SQLite + Litestream is an even greater choice for tenant databases, that's vastly cheaper to replicate/backup to S3/R2 than expensive cloud managed databases [1] (up to 3900% cheaper vs SQLServer on Azure). [1] https://docs.servicestack.net/ormlite/litestream
Always happy to see more server SQLite/Litestream adoption which we've also been using to build our new Apps with. SQLite + Litestream is an even greater choice for tenant databases, that's vastly cheaper to replicate/backup to S3/R2 than expensive cloud managed databases [1] (up to 3900% cheaper vs SQLServer on Azure). [1] https://docs.servicestack.net/ormlite/litestream
What does 3900% cheaper mean? I don't get it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That shouldn't be a big issue. Any service large/complex enough to care does the schema upgrades in phases, so it's 1. Make code future compatible. 2. Migrate data. 3. Remove old schema support. Exactly this, schema migrations should be an append, deprecate, drop operation over time.
I wish there were ways to enforce this on the db so you never accidentally grabbed a table lock during these operations. definitely have shot myself in the foot with postgres on this
You can use a linter for PostgreSQL migrations https://squawkhq.com/
I've got a bunch of invites if folks want them: bsky-social-etdu7-njigu bsky-social-2ktcs-uwoxg bsky-social-6f5nh-36gnq bsky-social-ciwro-3gzk5 bsky-social-y4h57-dxh3g
Slightly related: is Bluesky moderated good enough or do I get lots of rightwing and conspiracy crap like on twitter currently? I‘d really love to have some more civilized hub again that isn’t full of hate and anti-intellectualism.
On the surface, this looks like the worst combined with the awful. I hope someone will make a good article with some hard numbers to explain the benefits and analyze the assumed flaws, because this could be something really, fascinating to learn about.
To me, on the surface, particularly assuming you are building a distributed system to be run and deployed by many users, some of which are not professional sysadmins (which I believe is likely to be a goal here, and should be), this seems like quite a sane choice. I'd definitely expect a design goal to be avoiding the need to setup/configure/look after any additional database or other servers.
Why sha256 hash the user into to get a two character target directory? Wouldn't md5 be much faster and solve the same problem?
It's probably not healthy to have broken cryptographic hashes running around. If you don't need a secure hash there are plenty of fast non-cryptographic hashes.