Let's Talk about Benchmarks
SpacetimeDB initially claimed to process over 100,000 end-to-end transfer transactions per second, but later discovered and fixed performance issues that had made the original benchmark misleading. After improving its V8 threading model, SpacetimeDB now achieves 303,920 ± 4,712 transactions per second, surpassing its earlier results and outperforming Rust in their TypeScript benchmark. The company addressed criticism from competitors, defended the validity of its benchmark methodology, and emphasized its technical improvements and transparency.
- ▪SpacetimeDB initially reported processing over 100,000 transactions per second, but later identified and resolved internal performance issues.
- ▪After optimizing the V8 threading model, SpacetimeDB achieved 303,920 ± 4,712 transactions per second in its TypeScript benchmark, nearly doubling its original performance.
- ▪In the same benchmark, TypeScript outperformed Rust, which recorded 265,541 ± 940 transactions per second.
- ▪SpacetimeDB responded to criticism from competitors like PlanetScale, asserting that many claims against its technology were factually incorrect.
- ▪The company updated its benchmark visuals with error bars and introduced a 2x zoom feature to better display performance differences on standard screens.
Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Spacetimedb |
| Canonical URL | https://spacetimedb.com/blog/benchmarking |
| Publication time | Sat, 16 May 2026 23:34:03 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-16T23:40:19.081Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-16T23:40:19.081Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | None |
| Cluster logic | Not yet clustered, or no peer story found in the clustering window. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
In March, we announced SpacetimeDB 2.0 alongside a benchmark that claimed SpacetimeDB could process over 100,000 end-to-end transfer transactions per second. The video and our posts on social media picked up a lot of attention, and in some cases drew criticism for what some felt was misleading benchmarking, especially from competitors whose products did not perform well in our testing. Recently, we discovered and fixed several issues in SpacetimeDB, which unfortunately do make the benchmark numbers we published at that time misleading, and for that we apologize. Thing is, they're just not misleading in the way you might expect. The problem wasn't with the benchmark, but with SpacetimeDB itself. It wasn't living up to its true potential.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Spacetimedb.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Spacetimedb
