Turso is an in-process SQL database, compatible with SQLite - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46677583 - Jan 2026 (102 comments)
Beyond the SQLite single-writer limitation with concurrent writes - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45508462 - Oct 2025 (70 comments)
An adventure in writing compatible systems - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45059888 - Aug 2025 (12 comments)
Introducing the first alpha of Turso: The next evolution of SQLite - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44433997 - July 2025 (11 comments)
Working on databases from prison - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44288937 - June 2025 (534 comments)
Turso SQLite Offline Sync Public Beta - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43535943 - March 2025 (67 comments)
We will rewrite SQLite. And we are going all-in - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42781161 - Jan 2025 (3 comments)
Limbo: A complete rewrite of SQLite in Rust - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42378843 - Dec 2024 (232 comments)
See the features and roadmap at https://github.com/tursodatabase/turso
...which is a pretty arbitrary combination
In the past I've reached for FirebirdSQL when I needed local + external databases and wanted to limit the technology spread... In the use case, as long as transactions synched up even once a week it was enough for the disparate remote connections/systems. I'm honestly surprised it isn't used more. That said, SQLite is more universal and lighter overall.
> - Rust needs to mature a little more, stop changing so fast, and move further toward being old and boring.
Rust moves at a pretty glacial pace these days. Slower than C++ for sure. There haven't been any big, significant changes to the language since async. Code that compiles today should compile indefinitely. (And the rust compiler authors check this on every release, by recompiling basically everything in crates.io to make sure.)
> - Rust needs to demonstrate that it can be used to create general-purpose libraries that are callable from all other programming languages.
Rust matches C in this regard. You can import & export C functions from rust very easily. The consumer of the foreign function interface have no idea they're calling rust and not C.
> - Rust needs to demonstrate that it can produce object code that works on obscure embedded devices, including devices that lack an operating system.
Rust works pretty well on raw / embedded hardware via #[no_std]. There's a few obscure architectures supported by gcc and not llvm (and by extension rust). But it generally works great. I'd love to know what the real blocker platforms are (if any).
> - Rust needs to pick up the necessary tooling that enables one to do 100% branch coverage testing of the compiled binaries.
Uh, I think this is possible today? Rustrover (intellij) can certainly produce coverage reports. This doesn't feel out of reach.
> - Rust needs a mechanism to recover gracefully from OOM errors.
True. You can override the global allocator for a program and use that to detect OOM. But recovering from OOM in general is tricky. I personally wish rust's handling of allocators looked more like zig.
> - Rust needs to demonstrate that it can do the kinds of work that C does in SQLite without a significant speed penalty.
Rust and C are pretty much even when it comes to performance. Rust binaries are often a bit bigger though.
> If you are a "rustacean" and feel that Rust already meets the preconditions listed above, and that SQLite should be recoded in Rust, then you are welcomed and encouraged to contact the SQLite developers privately and argue your case.
It seems like the criteria are less of things the SQLite developers are claiming Rust can't do and more that they are non-negotiable properties that need to be considered before even bringing the idea of a rust version to the team.
I think it is at least arguable that Rust does not meet the requirements. And they did explicitly invite private argument if you feel differently.
0: https://web.archive.org/web/20190423143433/https://sqlite.or...
See <https://sqlite.org/testing.html#statement_versus_branch_cove...>. Does Rustrover produce branch coverage reports?
It looks like some parts are open source and other not. Does anyone know more about the backstory? (It looks like one is a custom program that generate fuzz test. Do they sell it to others SQL engines?)
> We still maintain the first one, the TCL tests. They’re still maintained. They’re still out there in the public. They’re part of the source tree. Anybody can download the source code and run my test and run all those. They don’t provide 100% test coverage but they do test all the features very thoroughly. The 100% MCD tests, that’s called TH3. That’s proprietary. I had the idea that we would sell those tests to avionics manufacturers and make money that way. We’ve sold exactly zero copies of that so that didn’t really work out. It did work out really well for us in that it keeps our product really solid and it enables us to turn around new features and new bug fixes very fast.
https://corecursive.com/066-sqlite-with-richard-hipp/#testin...
it's free
but if you want the compliance paperwork, you pay for it
I'm not ready to entertain Turso as an alternative to something that is as battle tested as Sqlite.
I think it's time for a new law of headlines: anything labeled a "deep dive" isn't.
1) It's MIT licensed. Including the test suite which is something lacking in SQLite:
https://github.com/tursodatabase/turso
2) They have a paid cloud option to drive income from:
That's not entirely true. SQLite has a TON of tests that are part of the public domain project: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/tree/master/test
They do have a test suite that's private which I understand to be more about testing for different hardware - they sell access to that for companies that want SQLite to work on their custom embedded hardware, details here: https://sqlite.org/th3.html
> SQLite Test Harness #3 (hereafter "TH3") is one of three test harnesses used for testing SQLite.
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.
That says enough.
You must be kidding. Last time I checked, sqlite was mostly extensive test suites.
On the other hand, Rust code and the culture of writing Rust leads to far more modularity, so maybe some useful stuff will come of it even if the startup fails.
I have been excited to see real work on databases in Rust, there are massive opportunities there.
personally i see more benefit in rust for example as ORM and layers that talk to the database. (those are often useful to have in such an ecossystem so you can use the database safe and sanely, like python or so but then u know, fast and secure.)
Unless you are Amazon which has the resources to maintain a fork (which is questionable by itself with all the layoffs), you probably shouldn't touch this.
We've all been around long enough to know that "free" VC-backed software always means "free... until it's in our interest to charge for it". And yet users will still complain about the rugpull in 2026, no matter how many times they've been through it. "Fool me once, shame on you"
SQLite is a good example: the author built a small ecosystem around it and managed to make a living from open source. Thanks to author's effort, we have a small surface area, extreme stability, relentless focus on correctness.
If we keep rewarding novelty over stewardship, we’ll lose more “SQLite-like” projects—stable cores that entire ecosystems depend on.
Why not Postgres? https://pglite.dev
I’m excited to see things improve though. Having a more traditional database, with more features and less historical weirdness on the client would be really cool.
Edit: https://pglite.dev/benchmarks actually not looking too bad.. I might have something new to try!
huh? That is clearly not the case. memory bugs - sure. Not having a public test suite, not accepting public contributions, weakly typed columns and lack of concurrency has nothing to do with the language. They're governance decisions, that's it.
>I see this situation trhough the prism of the innovator's dilemma: the incumbent is not willing to sacrifice a part of its market to evolve, so we need a new player to come and innovate.
I don't think the innovators dilemma quite applies in the open source world. Projects are tools, that's it. Preserving a project for the sake of preserving it isn't a good idea.
If people need to run a sqlite db in these exotic places, shedding it means someone else has to build their own tool now that can do it. Sqlite has decided that they care about that, so they support it, so they can't use rust. Seems sound.
Projects coming and going is a good thing in open source, not a bug.
That's an extraordinary claim for any C codebase.
Unless it ships with code enabling concurrency that is commented out, we should assume that "concurrency in C ain't easy" was a factor in that design choice.
The RIIR-benchmark: rewrite CPython in Rust, pass the complete test suite, no performance regressions, $100 budget. How far away are we there, a couple months? A few years? Or is it a completely ill-posed problem, due to the test suite being tied to the implementation language?
Single-issue coding benchmarks are getting saturated, and I'm wondering when we'll get to a point where coding agents will be able to tackle some long-running projects. Greenfield projects are hard to benchmark. So creating code or porting code from one language to another for an established project with a good test suite should make for an interesting benchmark, no?
Also sad that the test suite isn't open source. Would help drive development of the new DB...
https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atursodatabase%2Fturso%20u...
