> If you have an existing MySQL or MariaDB server, you can configure Dolt as a read-replica. As the Dolt read-replica consumes data changes from the primary server, it creates Dolt commits, giving you a read-replica with a versioned history of your data changes.

This is really cool.

To clarify, the wire protocol is the easy part, the semantic differences how each database does things is a whole other can of worms. Such emulation will never be 100%, quirks and all.

There are many valid reasons to pick other products but Elasticsearch is pretty good and fast at what it does. I've seen it ingest content at half a million documents per second. No stutters. Nothing. Just throw data at it and watch it keep up with that for an hour sustained (i.e. a bit over a billion documents). CPUs maxed out. This was about as fast as it went. We threw more data at it and it slowed down but it didn't die.

That data of course came from kafka being passed through a bunch of docker processes (Scala). All JVM based. Zero GC tuning needed. There was lots of other tuning we did. But the JVM wasn't a concern.

In .NET, this does not seem to be a performance issue, in fact, it is used by almost all performance-sensitive code to match or outperform C++ when e.g. writing SIMD code.

There are roughly three ways to pass data by reference:

- Object references (which work the same way as in JVM, compressed pointers notwithstanding)

- Unsafe pointers

- Byref pointers

While object references don't need explanation, the way the last two work is important.

Unsafe pointers (T*) are plain C pointers and are ignored by GC. They can originate from unmanaged memory (FFI, NativeMemory.Alloc, stack, etc.) or objects (fixed statement and/or other unsafe means). On an occasion a pointer into object interior (e.g. byte* from byte[], or MyStruct* from MyStruct field in an object) is required, such object is pinned by setting the bit in object header which is coincidentally used by GC during mark phase (concurrent or otherwise) to indicate live objects. When an object is pinned in this way, GC will not move it during relocation and/or compaction GC phase (again, concurrent or otherwise, not every GC is stop-the-world). In fact, objects are moved when GC deems so to be profitable, either by moving to a heap belonging to a different generation or by performing heap compaction when a combination of heuristics prompts it to reduce fragmentation. Over the years, numerous improvements to GC have been made to reduce the cost of object pinning to the point that it is never a concern today. Part because of those improvements, part because of the next feature.

Byref pointers (ref T) are like regular unsafe pointers except they are specially tracked by GC to allow to point to object interiors without writing unsafe code or having to pin the object. You can still write unsafe code with them by doing "byref arithmetics", which CoreLib and other performance sensitive code does (I'm writing a UTF-8 string library which heavily relies on that for performance), and they also allow to point to arbitrary non-object memory like regular unsafe pointers do - stack, FFI, NativeMemory.Alloc, etc. They are what Span<T> is based on (internally it is ref T + int length) allowing to wrap arbitrary memory ranges in a slice-like type which can then be safely consumed by all standard library APIs (you can int.Parse a Span<byte> slice from stack-allocated buffer, FFI call or a byte[] array without any overhead). Byref pointers can also be pinned by being stored in a stack frame location for pinned addresses, which GC is aware of. For stack and unmanaged memory this is a no-op and for object memory this only matters during GC itself. Of course nothing is ever free in software engineering but the overhead of byrefs is considered to be insignificant compared to object pinning.