View Source Frequently Asked Questions


Why should I use CubDB?

If your Elixir application needs an embedded database (which is a database that run inside your application, as opposed to one that runs as a separate software), then CubDB might be a great fit: its API is simple and idiomatic, you can supervise it as any other Elixir process, and it runs wherever Elixir runs, with no need to cross-compile native code. You can think about CubDB as an Elixir collection, like a Map or List, but one that is stored to disk and persistent to restarts.

The typical use-case for CubDB is data storage on single-instance applications or embedded software (for example, CubDB is a great fit for Nerves projects). In those contexts, CubDB is typically used for things like:

  • Persisting configuration and preferences

  • Data logging and storage of metrics or time series

  • Local database for application data


How does it compare with X?

CubDB is not jealous: it does its job well, without claiming to be better than others. There are many other great alternatives for storing data, and depending on your use-case they might be a better fit.

That said, here are some reasons why you might choose CubDB over other popular alternatives:

  • ETS (Erlang Term Store), like CubDB, can store arbitrary Elixir/Erlang terms, and comes by default with the Erlang runtime. Differently from CubDB though, ETS stores values in memory, so they are lost in case of a restart.

  • DETS is similar to ETS, but it persists values on disk. Compared to CubDB though, it does not support sorted collections. Also, you might find its API more convoluted that CubDB.

  • Mnesia is a distributed database system that comes with the Erlang runtime. It can be distributed, and enforces a schema. If on one hand it can make a great heavy-duty distributed database system, it is substantially more complicated to use than CubDB for embedded use cases.

  • SQLite, LevelDB, LMDB, etc. are all great general-purpose embedded databases. They support a variety of features, and have wider adoption than CubDB. Because they are not "Elixir native" though, you need a library to interact with them from Elixir, and they generally feel less "idiomatic" than CubDB when used from an Elixir application. In some cases (like when writing software for embedded devices), it can be more complicated to install and cross-compile them for your architecture, and some libraries might not play well with your supervision strategies (NIF libraries are fast, but will crash the Erlang VM if the native executable crash).

  • Plain files can be used to store simple data. Compared to CubDB though, they don't offer efficient key/value access or sorted collections, and they are subject to data corruption if a sudden power loss happens mid-write. CubDB is designed to be efficient and robust, so a power loss won't corrupt its data, or break atomicity.

If your use case is such that one of those alternatives is a better fit, by all means go for it: CubDB won't be sad :) But if CubDB fits your use case, you will enjoy its native Elixir feel and simple but versatile model.


What is compaction?

CubDB uses an append-only B-tree data structure: each change to CubDB is appended to the data file, instead of modifying the existing data in-place. This is efficient and robust: writing at the end of a file is faster than "jumping around", and should something go wrong in the middle of a write (say, a power failure), no data is destroyed by a partial overwrite, so CubDB is able to recover upon restart.

The drawback of this approach though, is that the data file will keep growing as you write to the database, even when you update or delete existing values. Performance of read and write operations is not affected by the file size, but space utilization can be optimized: old entries that are not "reachable" are still in the data file, making it larger than it needs to be. Compaction is the operation through which CubDB "cleans up" and makes its data file compact and space-efficient again. Other databases have similar processes (for example, SQLite calls it "vacuuming").

During a compaction operation, CubDB creates a new file, and transfers to it the current entries, without the stale data. When all the data is transferred, including entries written after the compaction started, CubDB switches to use the new compacted file and removes the old, obsolete one. The compaction process is performed in the background, without blocking read or write operations on the active data file.

Should a compaction operation be interrupted by a shutdown or an application crash, no data is lost: the old data file is still up to date and active, and upon the next compaction the file left over by the interrupted compaction is removed and a new one created.


Should I use auto compaction?

Usually, letting CubDB perform compaction automatically is the most convenient choice: CubDB will keep track of its "dirt factor", which is an indicator of how much overhead could be shaved off by a compaction, and clean up when necessary.

In some situations though, it can be advisable to avoid auto compaction and compact your database manually. One example is if you are performing a one-off data import: in this case, it makes sense to import all data, and manually trigger a compaction only afterwards. This reduces disk contention during the import. Note that you can turn auto compaction on or off at runtime with CubDB.set_auto_compact/2.


What does file sync mean?

When you write to a file, your operative system usually buffers writes in memory, and actually writes them in the file system only later. This makes write operations faster: file system access is expensive, and buffering batches together several writes in one single operation. The drawback is that, should a power failure happen before the buffer is written to the file system, data that was held in the buffer might be lost. When you want to make sure that data is safe in the file system, you have to tell the operative system to "file sync", which means to flush the buffer to disk.

With CubDB, you can chose to automatically sync each write operation, or to manually sync when you prefer. If you need faster write performance, but you are ok with a small chance of losing recently written data in case of a power loss (for example if you use CubDB to log large quantity of data), you might choose to not perform automatic file sync. Note that the operative system will still sync data periodically, and upon clean shutdown. If instead you want to be sure that data that was successfully written by CubDB won't be lost, even in case of a power failure, you should use the auto file sync option: write operations will be sensibly slower, but each write will be safe on disk by the time the write operation completes.

Even with auto file sync turned off, power failures won't corrupt the database or break atomicity. Whether to file sync or not is therefore a trade off between durability and write performance, and does not affect other semantics.