UStore

s, like multi-shot requests, also look intriguing, but we couldn't see a flawless way to integrate them into UJRPC. Maybe next time. Like a parent with two kids, we tell everyone we love Kernel Bypass and SIMD equally. So I decided to combine the two, potentially implementing one of the fastest implementations of the most straightforward RPC protocol - JSON-RPC. ~~Healthy and Fun~~ Efficient and Simple, what can be better? By now, you may already guess at least one of the dependencies - `simdjson` by Daniel Lemiere, that has become the industry standard. io_uring is generally very fast, even with a single core. Adding more polling threads may only increase congestion. We needed to continue using no more than one thread, but parsing messages may involve more work than just invoking a JSON parser. JSON-RPC is transport agnostic. The incoming requests can be sent over HTTP, pre-pended by rows of headers. Those would have to be POSTs and generally contain Content-Length and Content-Type. There is a SIMD-accelerated library for that as well. It is called `picohttpparser`, uses SSE, and is maintained by H2O. The story doesn't end there. JSON is limited. Passing binary strings is a nightmare. The most common approach is to encode them with base-64. So we took the Turbo-Base64 from the PowTurbo project to decode those binary strings. The core implementation of UJRPC is under 2000 lines of C++. Knowing that those lines connect 3 great libraries with the newest and coolest parts of Linux is enough to put a smile on my face. Most people are more rational, so here is another reason to be cheerful. - FastAPI throughput: 3'184 rps. - Python gRPC throughput: 9'849 rps. - UJRPC throughput: -- Python server with io_uring: 43'000 rps. -- C server with POSIX: 79'000 rps. -- C server with io_uring: 231'000 rps. Granted, this is yet to be your batteries-included server. It can't balance the load, manage threads, spell S in HTTPS, or call parents when you misbehave in school. But at least part of it you shouldn't expect from a web server. After following the standardization process of executors in C++ for the last N+1 years, we adapted the "bring your runtime" and "bring your thread-pool" policies. HTTPS support, however, is our next primary objective. --- Of course, it is a pre-production project and must have a lot of bugs. Don't hesitate to report them. We have huge plans for this tiny package and will potentially make it the default transport of UKV: https://github.com/unum-cloud/ukv

while already being one of the 2 most popular languages. Gatling, however, never heard of it. Choosing between the two, I would pick Python. But neither works if you want to design a High-Performance benchmark for a fast system. Without automatic memory management and expensive runtimes, you can only implement those in C, C++, Rust, or another systems-programming language. We have faced that too many times that the benchmark itself works worse than the system it is trying to evaluate [2]. B. Using hardware from 2010 [3], weird datasets [4]. This shocked me. When I looked at the charts [5] and the benchmarking section, it seemed highly professional and good-looking. I wouldn't expect less from a startup with $20M VC funding. But the devil is in the details. I would have never expected anyone benchmarking a new DBMS to use now 13-year-old CPUs and an unknown dataset. Assuming current developer salaries, hiring people to design a DBMS doesn't make sense if you will be evaluating on a $1000 machine is just financially irresponsible. We buy expensive servers, they cost like sports cars or even apartments in poorer countries. It is hard to maintain, but they are essential to quality work. It is sad to see companies taking such shortcuts. But to be a devil's advocate, there is no 1 graph benchmark or dataset that everyone agrees on. So I imagine people experimenting with multiple real datasets of different sizes or generating them systemically using one of the Random Generator algorithms. In UKV, we have used Twitter data to construct both document and graph collections. In the past, we have also used `ci-patent`, `bio-mouse-gene`, `human-Jung2015-M87102575`, and hundreds of other public datasets from the Network Repository and SNAP [6]. There are datasets of every shape and size, reaching around 1 Billion edges, in case someone is searching for data. For us the next step is the reconstruction of the Web from the 300 TB CommonCrawl dataset [7]. There is no such Graph benchmark in existence, but it is the biggest public dataset we could find. C. Running query different number of times for various engines. This can be justified, and it is how current benchmarks are done. You are tracking not just the mean execution time but also variability, so if at some point results converge, you abrupt before hitting the expected iterations number to save time. --- LDBC [8] seems like a good contestant for a potential industry standard, but it needs to be completed. Its "Business Intelligence workload" and "Interactive workload" categories exclude any real "Graph Analytics". Running an All-Pairs-Shortest-Paths algorithm on a large external memory graph could have been a much more interesting integrated benchmark. Similarly, one can make large-scale community detection or personalized recommendations based on Graphs and evaluate the overall cost/performance. It, however, poses another big challenge. Almost all algorithm implementations for those problems are vertex-centric. They scale poorly with large sparse graphs that demand edge-centric algorithms, so a new implementation has to be written from scratch. We will try to allocate more resources towards that in 2023 and invite anyone curious to join. --- [1] https://github.com/unum-cloud/ukv [2] https://unum.cloud/post/2022-03-22-ucsb [3] https://github.com/memgraph/memgraph/tree/master/tests/mgben... [4] https://github.com/memgraph/memgraph/tree/master/tests/mgben... [5] https://memgraph.com/benchgraph/base [6] https://snap.stanford.edu/data [7] https://commoncrawl.org [8] https://ldbcouncil.org/benchmarks/snb