[MobiusHorizons]

> 2) They have a paid cloud option to drive income from:

I’ve been confused by this for a while. What is it competing with? Surely not SQLite, being client server defeats all the latency benefits. I feel it would be considered as an alternative to cloud Postgres offerings, and it seems unlikely they could compete on features. Genuinely curious, but is there any sensible use case for this product, or do they just catch people who read SQLite was good on hacker news, but didn’t understand any of the why.

[3eb7988a1663]

The thing that cooks my noodle - who are these insane people who want to beta test a new database? Yes, all databases could have world destroying data loss/corruption, but I have significantly more confidence in a player than has been on the market for many years.

[IshKebab]

The article talks about this. If you have a project that starts small and an in-process DB is fine, but you end up needing to scale up then you don't have to switch DBs.

[lelanthran]

That's a valid, but very tiny, use case.

After all, if you can tell in advance that you might hit the limits of SQLite, you'd simply start with postgresql on day one, not with a new unproven DB vendor with a product that has been through the trial by fire of existing DBs.

[gizzlon]

So the usecase is: I started with SQLite, but now I have too many terrabytes to fit on one server? That seems.. very uncommon.

And since moving it out of process, and even to another network, is going to make it much much much slower. You're going to need a rewrite anyway

[MobiusHorizons]

Thanks. Serves me right for commenting without reading the article.

[lelanthran]

> Genuinely curious, but is there any sensible use case for this product

Looking at the comments each time this product comes up, Rust is apparently the selling point for many, including the dev team themselves.