cvilsmeier

According to my private tests, using STATIC instead of TRANSIENT does not yield a significant performance boost (maybe 1 to 5 percent, if at all).

You're right. A table. I've included one.

Thank you.

You are correct: Multiple connections means multiple sqinn subprocesses.

> How come Zombiezen came out faster ? I’d expect the opposite

(OP here) Honestly, me too. Maybe it has to do with leaving out that database/sql driver layer. I guess it would need another round of pprof to find out the real reason.

Nothing wrong with it, but there are other drivers that cross-compile better and are faster.

For sqinn it's because of its design: Shuffling that much data over process boundaries takes time. For zombie, more pprof would be needed to explain the behaviour.

Yes, in fact the benchmark started out as a comparison between sqinn and mattn. (There was no modernc at that time.)

Maybe because Go devs are more allergic to 'non-Go' solutions that Java devs are to 'non-Java' solutions? (Explain: Java's xerial driver is a DLL/SO wrapped in a Java library)

Sqinn author here. Yes, sqinn performs quite well compared to the 'standard' mattn driver. The only use case it clearly breaks down is when SELECTing very large (gigabytes) resultsets.

If you want to monitor custom app metrics and server resource usage, you can also try Monibot. It's not comparable to catalyst, though.