Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Comparison to Crepe? #9

Closed
langston-barrett opened this issue Dec 7, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Comparison to Crepe? #9

langston-barrett opened this issue Dec 7, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@langston-barrett
Copy link
Contributor

Crepe is another Rust-macro-embedded Datalog-like eDSL. It would be nice to point to it from the README as an alternative, or even better, to provide a short comparison between the two projects.

@kmicinski
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the great points. We did look into Crepe a while back, we should write about it in the readme, etc.. I believe we currently are getting better results than Crepe due to our efficient parallel compilation strategy--also, Crepe does not support lattices. So those are two main differences that Ascent implementations should use if they hope to achieve scalability gains vs. Crepe.

@s-arash
Copy link
Owner

s-arash commented Dec 7, 2022

Additionally, we support user-extensible stratified aggregation. It looks to me that Crepe currently only supports stratified negation.

@s-arash
Copy link
Owner

s-arash commented Dec 7, 2022

I'll likely reference this issue in README. Until then, I'll keep it open.

@kmicinski
Copy link
Collaborator

I am closing this issue--we have some discussion of Crepe in our BYODS paper. It is a nice system as well and I encourage folks to check it out, but I don't think we need to do more comparison against Crepe as they have diverged in substantively different directions: with BYODS and parallelism (not supported by Crepe).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants