Hello Crate community. First of all, congratulations on CrateDB. Its unique.
I would like to know if it’s possible to use a unix socket path instead of a http port for the REST interface, because it is able to provide half of the latency and twice the performance, with zero changes both on server and client. 
This sounds interesting, but I don’t know if that or something similar has been considered by the database team, or if it would be up for consideration. Maybe @smu or @matriv are able to answer this?
With kind regards,
We are always happy to learn about where and how CrateDB is used, specifically by people who value its uniqueness. So, if you can share your use case or application, we will be all ears to hear about it. ↩︎
@paulocoghi First of all, thank you again for your suggestions!
After some discussion with the team, we decided not to invest time in the near future to investigate serialization/de-serialization improvements.
The reason is that so far we haven’t noticed a bottleneck in this area, which justifies a time investment to improve things. If you see, in the Flatbuffer benchmarks you’ve posted, CrateDB is more in the raw struct case, and from investigations on slow queries or inserts/updates, we see that the time spent for serialization/deserialization is in the order of microseconds, when the bottleneck in other areas, like the query execution engine, or Lucene, is in the order of seconds. We have thoughts though to optimize the content that we send around in certain cases, which can reduce both the time spent for serialization/deserialization and the network bandwidth required.