<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Performance on HyperCrux.com</title>
    <link>https://hypercrux.com/tags/performance/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Performance on HyperCrux.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://hypercrux.com/tags/performance/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Three Ways to Make HyperCrux Faster: A C Search Loop, AltSql DB Underneath or a New Engine in C</title>
      <link>https://hypercrux.com/three-ways-to-make-hypercrux-faster-a-c-search-loop-altsql-db-underneath-or-a-new-engine-in-c/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://hypercrux.com/three-ways-to-make-hypercrux-faster-a-c-search-loop-altsql-db-underneath-or-a-new-engine-in-c/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;HyperCrux 0.1 is a Go library and command on top of SQLite, and it&amp;rsquo;s quick at the sizes it was built for. In the recorded benchmarks on a two-core cloud machine, a get by key takes 18 microseconds and a walk one link out 43 microseconds. A search among 100,000 vectors of 384 values takes 0.41 seconds. The question that comes up next is how much faster it could get, and what each step would cost.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
