I wish we would focus on making tooling better for W3C EXI (Binary XML encoding) instead of inventing new formats. Just being fast isn't enough, I don't see many using Aeron/SBT, it need a ecosystem - which XML does have.
Binary XML encoding (like W3C EXI) is useful in some contexts, but it’s generally not as efficient as modern binary serialization formats. It also can’t naturally express shared or circular reference semantics, which are important for complex object graphs.
Fory’s format was designed from the ground up to handle those cases efficiently, while still enabling cross‑language compatibility and schema evolution.
I am not sure if W3C EXI, or ASN.1 BER or something else is better, but agree that using DOP (rather than OOP) design principles is the right answer -- which means focusing on the encoding first, and working backwards towards the languages / clients.
DOP is great, but there’s always a gap between DOP and OOP. That gap is where Fory comes in. Right now, Fory takes an OOP‑first approach, but next we’ll add a DOP path by introducing an optional IDL — bridging the two styles. My goal is for the IDL to also support optional OOP‑style expressiveness, so teams can choose the balance that fits their needs.
DOP is very interesting, I like this idea too — most DOP approaches are implemented via an IDL, which is another valid direction. I plan to support that in Fory. I want to give users the freedom to choose the model that works best for them.
Super interesting compiling pg, I assume, with same as the zfs block size! It was always on our todo to try, but never got around to it. If possible, what block size did you end up with? Have you tried zfs direct io in 2.3.x, if so, could you share any findings? Thanks for sharing - and cool website!
I don’t think Postgres will be able to benefit from direct io? I might be wrong though!
I use Postgres with 32K BLKSZ.
I am actually using default 128K zfs recordsize, in a mixed workload, I found overall performance nicer than matching at 32K, and compression is way better.
If I may make an suggestion: Instead of a static json file, read at boot, I'd suggest passing the feature flags down per request as a header, or a pointer to the set of feature flag. So that all systems for a given request, observe the same features. Just my 2 cents.
I belive that Solaris (OpenSolaris) Zones predates LXC by around 3 years. Even when working with k8s and docker every day, I still find what OpenSolaris had in 2009 superior. Crossbow and zfs tied it all together so neatly. What OpenSolaris could have been in another world. :D
I've been looking at Materielize for a while (https://materialize.com/). It can handle automatically refreshed materialized views. Last time I checked, it didn't support some Postgres SQL constructs that I use often, but I'm really looking forward to it.
I think that the problem is when you have a materialized view which takes hours to refresh. We are lucky that 99% of our traffic is during 7-19 on weekdays, so we can just refresh at night, but that won't work for others.
I don't know much about how postgresql works internally, so I just probably don't understand the constraints. Anyway as I understand, there are two ways to refresh. You either refresh a view concurrently or not.
If not, then postgres rebuilds the view from its definition on the side and at the end some internal structures are switched from the old to the new query result. Seems reasonable, but for some reason, which I don't understand due to my limited knowledge, an exclusive access lock is held for the entire duration of the refresh and all read queries are blocked, what doesn't work for us.
If you refresh concurrently, postgres rebuilds the view from its definition and compares the old and the new query result with a full outer join to compute a diff. The diff is then applied to the old data (like regular table INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE I assume), so I think you get away with just an exclusive lock and read access still works. There are two downsides to this, first that it requires a UNIQUE constraint for the join, second that the full outer join is a lot of additional work.
I never had the time to test Materialize, but it seems to do what I want with its continuous refresh.
I also thought about splitting the materialized view into two, one for rarely changing data and another one for smaller part of the data which changes daily. Then I would only have to refresh the smaller view and UNION ALL both materialized views in a regular view. Not sure how well will that work with postgres query planner.
Not sure about how that would work with the PG query planner either, but a batch for rarely changing data and rapid changing data is basically the Lambda data architecture, so probably a good call!
There's one gotcha with this approach: if there's another DDL operation running simultaneously with REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW, you'd get an internal postgres error.
You cannot be sure that refresh won't coincide with a grant on all tables in the schema, for example.
Mssql has "indexed views" which are automatically updated instantly... But they destroy your insert/update performance and their requirements are so draconian as to be completely impossible to ever actually use (no left joins, no subqueries, no self joins, etc...).
Yes, views are nice, but there is also a fair concept of not needlessly bogging down a table. Sure, they were making up data, but a flat table with stats, profile data and other easily external data is just bloat. Once you have an id then static fields can be retrieved from other services/data stores.
I think their point is more ‘don’t store all that junk in your primary database and then do all your work on it there too if you can just stuff it somewhere else’. Which has pros and cons and depends a lot on various scaling factors.
I'm pretty sure most engines use the term "materialized views" for eventual consistency tables. The only db I've seen with that kind of ACID materialized view is MS SQL, which calls them "indexed views".
If one wanted to do server side rendering in Java with something like Turbo links, in 2020 - what would one use? JSP? Grails? JSF? Or just hit the bar instead? :-)
JSF really is meant for quickly building internal applications that don't have to withstand "web scale" loads. It's focused on churning out data driven applications quickly. Add something like Bootsfaces or Primefaces and you can produce these things in very little time. Thats not to say you couldn't use JSF to make a "Web Scale" project, but you would have to dive into your server pretty far to carefully watch state management and session creation. Not impossible, but just probably not its primary purpose.
For external facing applications that need to withstand a "web scale" load, Eclipse Krazo (aka MVC spec 1.2) and JSP are what you're looking for. These things are lightning fast and give you a lot of control over session creation by default. Render times are usually under a few ms. This is probably the fastest and least resource intensive stack available (no benchmark provided, take it for what you paid for the comment).
I see there is a few posts repeating the common interpretation that glyphosate is not dangerous because it only targets metabolic pathway only animals has, so for the sake of discussion here is another viewpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVolljHmqEs (disregard the clickbait title), summary: Glyphosate is not bad for your body, but it does kill everything in your stomach, and that is not so awesome.
