In-memory database Redis wants to dabble in disk • Hacker News Board

Re: In-memory database Redis wants to dabble in disk

#61

Post by lmm » Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 7:39 AM UTC

FridgeSeal wrote: post #53

lmm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If what you want is persistent k/v, then there are already tons databases that can do that. Are there? What's a good, mainstream, persistent k/v for cheap single-node instances? PostgreSQL's KV support isn't good enough, Cassandra and MongoDB expect to be set up as a cluster and have all the overhead of that, BikeshedDB is alpha and I won't touch their upstream for obvious reasons, CouchDB is pretty much unmaintain…

RocksDB, Badger if you want embedded; which seems to be a more popular mechanism among kv-stores. LMDB. FoundationDB, etcd, consul in single node mode.

I'm not looking for embedded, we're talking about a Redis substitute. etcd/consul feel oriented towards running as a cluster and I'd expect overhead for that. FoundationDB is potentially a good shout, but it's not that established, e.g. it doesn't seem to be available in a managed way in cloud hosting environments.

Re: In-memory database Redis wants to dabble in disk

#62

Post by FridgeSeal » Sat, Oct 21, 2023, 11:55 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #61

FridgeSeal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RocksDB, Badger if you want embedded; which seems to be a more popular mechanism among kv-stores. LMDB. FoundationDB, etcd, consul in single node mode.

I'm not looking for embedded, we're talking about a Redis substitute. etcd/consul feel oriented towards running as a cluster and I'd expect overhead for that. FoundationDB is potentially a good shout, but it's not that established, e.g. it doesn't seem to be available in a managed way in cloud hosting environments.

KV Stores seem to be in a kind of split place, existing either as embedded, or full cluster mode. There isn’t really a “sqlite” or “postgres” of persistent KV stores. Cloud providers ship their own proprietary KV-stores: Dynamo in AWS, Bigtable in GCP. If you are ok with hosted, Scylla is also an option.

I’m always shocked that people use Redis for anything other than an ephemeral cache.

Re: In-memory database Redis wants to dabble in disk

#63

Post by lmm » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 12:18 AM UTC

FridgeSeal wrote: post #62

lmm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not looking for embedded, we're talking about a Redis substitute. etcd/consul feel oriented towards running as a cluster and I'd expect overhead for that. FoundationDB is potentially a good shout, but it's not that established, e.g. it doesn't seem to be available in a managed way in cloud hosting environments.

KV Stores seem to be in a kind of split place, existing either as embedded, or full cluster mode. There isn’t really a “sqlite” or “postgres” of persistent KV stores. Cloud providers ship their own proprietary KV-stores: Dynamo in AWS, Bigtable in GCP. If you are ok with hosted, Scylla is also an option. I’m always shocked that people use Redis for anything other than an ephemeral cache.

Your second paragraph follows from your first - people use Redis in this space because it's the closest thing there is to an "sqlite" or "postgres" for KV. Which is why I think Redis with persistence actually makes a lot of sense and fills a gap in the market.