IOk, "known" issue then 
no problem ahah
no problem ahah
AOut of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the stability of the experimental backend vs the old backend for D1?
I have a few projects that are using the old D1 backend, is it worth switching now or should we wait for the beta?
I have a few projects that are using the old D1 backend, is it worth switching now or should we wait for the beta?
UI mean both are inheritly unstable given its alpha
UThe new backend should be faster but doesnt have backups at the current moment afaik
AYup, asking with the assumption of the alpha tag haha. I more asked because when the new backend came out, I noticed that there were enough obvious errors that switching didn't make sense. Wondering if the situation has improved now to the point that a general happy path (simple query + insert statements with low load) isn't expected to encounter errors.
CThe execution times are noticeably better and there haven't really been many major issues I've seen in this channel. Do keep in mind that the new backend doesn't have backups yet
AGot it, that's good to know 
. I suppose once backups are available it makes sense to switch then
. I suppose once backups are available it makes sense to switch thenCKeep in mind it isn't going to be a sql dumb zip but Time Travel.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/d1-turning-it-up-to-11/ search for Time Travel header
https://blog.cloudflare.com/d1-turning-it-up-to-11/ search for Time Travel header
Pi have a decent oltp db in mysql, about 150gb, that i would love to get into d1 so the performance is going to be a real issue
Pi have workers serving 500 req/sec out of kv at the moment but im really interested in having the backend db in d1, pushing aggregated data into kv
Mfwiw #analytics-engine-beta is ridiculously good for high rps analytics data, we're using it to power the stats in the dashboard
MHello, I planned to use d1 on a future product. I'm asking if there will be some breaking change from the alpha release to the production ready d1 ?
UIt is possible
U
MNot Final / Initial Release / MVP but... we're close. Hoping to land this within the next 2 weeks.
- Our v1.0 will replace the DB in place.
- In future, we'll default to a
approach and make overwriting (even more) explicit.--fork/--clone - We'll explore adding helper flags - e.g.
or similar to avoid you having to deal with Unix timestamps.--minutes-ago=15m
IIdeally it'd be great to have either a duplicate or a way to lock a version too keep it "forever".
MRight, that'd be
--clone/--fork- just copy it to a fresh DB and do what you want.
--clone=new-name
IThe "lock" action is very intuitive given it's common for many things, but this would be great regardless.
MCan you expand on what "lock" means - e.g. no longer accepting writes? At all?
ILet me find you an example.
MOr do you want to say "keep this version forever" (which is... cloning that bookmark to a DB you can keep)
M(Then you end up with several things to manage - you have "regular" databases and then some set of "persistent locked copies" that exist at a meta layer, and charge you for storage)
II meant this yes, I get it's the same, I'd be fine regardless... but it's way easier UX wise, less duplicate things and it's all compressed into one entry.
MSee what I wrote above. I don't agree. We're gonna charge you to keep it around "forever", sorry.
IOh yeah, not expecting you to not charge for that
IDefinitely do, everyone does.
MAnd then if you want to query that "locked" version, is that some special binding? How that does map to just being "another" DB? etc.
IOh no no, it's not an actually present and accessible db. It'd be a sort of snapshot saved you can revert to or clone out of.
IYou could use it to create another db or revert the one you are using back to that.
M(I'm intentionally being a little obtuse because I'm trying to understand why adding "more" to the data model is helpful) - so why not just make that another DB
- ?
MIf we let you have ~100+ DBs per account, or 1000?
IScaleway, for example, in their DB implementation (it's somewhat different, those are actual VMs running a managed DB instance on them) has a backup/snapshot feature. Billed per GB/month (sort of like it being saved to an object storage) which get discarded after some time you define. You can lock version to bypass this and keep them forever (with the cost, of course).
MRight, but that makes sense when you think about disk snapshots in a traditional, VM based system, without point in time recovery.
MSo you have to take snapshots.
IBecause, let's imagine you have a sort of sample dataset you use. You have multiple Workers, Pages sites, etc. connected to it. Now, you clone it out for initial data. You run things for a while and then you want to revert. Now you have to go and change where each of those things point to (by cloning the "backup" to a separate thing, because otherwise you loose it).
IWith a locked "snapshot" you can define, you just go there, click and replace the current instance.
IOr create another one.
IOh yeah, again, I'd be fine with both instances, they'd both work fine. It's mostly UX and having users handle the duplication vs. a simple "lock" which handles things in the backed automatically.
MI don't think that requires snapshots. If we let you clone over the top of another DB... then you can achieve that.
IOh if you do, then ok. Then 99% of the thing goes away.
MThe more new concepts we add, and the more "things" that can eat your bill (we have to list your snapshots, show usage by snapshot, etc) -> way more complexity.
II assumed you could only clone to new or to itself
MThis is why I push you
MNow, you clone it out for initial data. You run things for a while and then you want to revert. Now you have to go and change where each of those things point to (by cloning the "backup" to a separate thing, because otherwise you loose it).
IOh yeah, I'm happy to engage in this 
MThat was your problem in a nutshell 
IYeah, with the ability to clone over something else that exists already then yeah. it's just some UX, but it makes sense. Cloudflare is more dev focused, a Scaleway has a slightly wider user base that would go to it.
V@elithrar Do you guys have a date in mind when you will start allowing size limit increase?
