Closed gedw99 closed 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing. Benchmarking PocketBase applications is a little more complicated vs raw SQLite as there multiple layers before between the request and the database (routing middlewares, collection API rules, validations, json response filtering, etc.).
For the most recent PocketBase benchmarks you can explore the Results files.
Yeah I looked already art the result files.
I was hoping to get an idea of currency aspects, which those results don't show.
Main thing is the response time based on number of concurrent users. for example
Creating posts (10k, 25k, 50k, 100k)
Creating 5000 posts10k [reqs:5000, conc:500, rule:""]
┌─ Best: 7.481876ms
├─ Worst: 6.382093667s
├─ Completed: 6.540550371s
└─ Errors: 0
I assume conc: 500 means that its 500 concurrent users ?
I assume conc: 500 means that its 500 concurrent users ?
Yes.
But again the linked article cannot be compared directly to PocketBase because we do a lot more work. You are not taking in consideration:
SQLITE_BUSY
errors
https://www.terlici.com/2023/11/06/pushing-sqlite-limits.html Shows sone good benchmarks
sqlite and golang
24K requests per second, 72Mbit/s traffic, 271MB RAM used. That’s with writes concurrently
am think it might be good to change the benchmarks to writes / second styje results because that is how users would want to do the metrics on their servers. Then we can start to see comparative results .