Yeah, fair pushback, and yes the intro was AI-assisted. Marketing is not my strength nor I am a native english speaker. I built this in about a month with heavy LLM tooling and the seed comment is part of that. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
The code is what it is. `cargo test --workspace` runs across 19 crates. CI on 5 platforms (macOS ARM/Intel, Linux x86/ARM, Windows). JSON output schemas are codegen-checked in CI so docs can't drift from the binary.
If you want to skip the marketing copy and look at engine reasoning instead: PR #240 (audit trail), #241 (column classification + masking), #270 (failed-source surfacing in discover).
I'd rather hear "the code is bad" than "the post sounds AI-written".
This comment itself is likely written by AI by the sounds of it. It may be worth your time writing it out in your own words in your native language and then finding a competent translation tool to translate your words.
'A-Lot' of side projects, hobby projects, etc.. are all using AI tools now. Also for marketing, every sales/marketing firm is using AI. So why critisize this guy inparticular.
AI is pervasive, the train has left the station. So that is not a reason to criticize this project. There might be other reasons, I'm not sure, but not that an AI was used.
What's going to distinguish projects that are built this way is the ability to explain, document, support, and maintain said projects over the long term.
It's so easy to let the code grow under you beyond what you have the capacity to do the above for.
I've got the same thing going on. Eschewing paid work and grinding 16, 17 hours a day to build the whole universe from scratch (also a database, but of a different sort) integrating all my favourite DB research papers and ideas that I've accumulated over the last 30 years. Outperforms postgres 2-4x or more, has a battery of correctness tests, Lean proofs, benchmarks, etc. etc.
But frankly I'd be nervous to share. I don't even know where it ends up. Because if I'm doing it, so are 50 other people, probably.
Its a bit confusing to claim that "The things your current stack can't give you because it doesn't own the DAG" and use DataBricks as your example: DataBricks includes jobs and pipelines, so it very much owns the DAG, no?
Fair point. Databricks owns a scheduling DAG (Workflows, DLT). What I meant by "owns the DAG" is the semantic DAG: model-to-model dependencies with column-level types that the compiler builds.
Workflows knows task A runs before task B. Rocky knows `dim_customer.email` flows from `raw_users.email_address` through three CTEs in `stg_customers`. Different layer, same word.
Looks cool, I've been waiting for someone to build this since dbt and SQLMesh acquisition. It would be great to have model versioning and support for ClickHouse SQL.
Thanks. On model versioning — what's the use case you have in mind? A few options that map to different designs:
- dbt-style semantic-layer versions (v1/v2 of a model)
- schema migration history
- branch-based (Rocky already has branches + replay)
Different design choice for each, so it helps to know which problem you're trying to solve.
ClickHouse is tractable through the Adapter SDK without engine patching. If you can share roughly your model count and workload shape, I can put a real timeline on it. Open to community PRs too.
Thanks for the careful read. The "what breaks if I rename this column" question is exactly what column lineage from the compiler is meant to answer, and you said it better than I did in the post.
On the schema-grounded AI angle: agreed. The failure mode you describe — structurally valid SQL that joins on the wrong key or aggregates at the wrong grain because the model hallucinated a relationship — is exactly what the compiler is positioned to catch. AI-generated SQL runs through the type checker before it can land, so suggestions that don't validate against the actual DAG never reach the user. NL-to-SQL tools that integrate a compile step would close exactly the gap you're pointing at.
On your two questions:
1. Branch isolation for stateful models — mixed answer, and worth being honest about:
- Incremental: isolated. The watermark `state_key` includes the resolved schema, and `rocky branch create` swaps the schema prefix. So a branch run reads/writes a different redb key than main and they don't advance each other.
- Snapshot: not yet. Today `rocky branch create` only writes a branch record; it doesn't copy warehouse tables. A snapshot model on a branch starts with an empty table (CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS in the branch schema) and accumulates from the first branch run, with no inherited history from main. That's the gap. The fix is the next wave: native Delta SHALLOW CLONE / Snowflake zero-copy at branch creation, which gives point-in-time snapshot semantics without copy-on-write overhead.
2. Cost attribution. Both bytes scanned and duration are captured per-model in the run record (`bytes_scanned` and duration on `RunRecord`). Budget gating today is on cost (USD) and duration — `max_usd` and `max_duration_ms` in `[budget]` blocks in `rocky.toml`, as independent thresholds. A direct bytes-scanned budget threshold isn't gateable today; the bytes are in the run record for analysis but you can't currently fail CI on "this run scanned more than N TB". Reasonable extension if there's demand.
To your Snowflake point: the warehouse-size × duration credit model and the scan volume tell genuinely different stories, so they're tracked separately rather than rolled into a single number.
If your introduction message already includes a bunch of uncurated claims and LLM smells, then what does that say about the code I'm about to run?
Yeah, fair pushback, and yes the intro was AI-assisted. Marketing is not my strength nor I am a native english speaker. I built this in about a month with heavy LLM tooling and the seed comment is part of that. I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
The code is what it is. `cargo test --workspace` runs across 19 crates. CI on 5 platforms (macOS ARM/Intel, Linux x86/ARM, Windows). JSON output schemas are codegen-checked in CI so docs can't drift from the binary.
If you want to skip the marketing copy and look at engine reasoning instead: PR #240 (audit trail), #241 (column classification + masking), #270 (failed-source surfacing in discover).
I'd rather hear "the code is bad" than "the post sounds AI-written".
This comment itself is likely written by AI by the sounds of it. It may be worth your time writing it out in your own words in your native language and then finding a competent translation tool to translate your words.
Not sure why you are downvoted here.
'A-Lot' of side projects, hobby projects, etc.. are all using AI tools now. Also for marketing, every sales/marketing firm is using AI. So why critisize this guy inparticular.
AI is pervasive, the train has left the station. So that is not a reason to criticize this project. There might be other reasons, I'm not sure, but not that an AI was used.
It's really a weird world now.
What's going to distinguish projects that are built this way is the ability to explain, document, support, and maintain said projects over the long term.
It's so easy to let the code grow under you beyond what you have the capacity to do the above for.
I've got the same thing going on. Eschewing paid work and grinding 16, 17 hours a day to build the whole universe from scratch (also a database, but of a different sort) integrating all my favourite DB research papers and ideas that I've accumulated over the last 30 years. Outperforms postgres 2-4x or more, has a battery of correctness tests, Lean proofs, benchmarks, etc. etc.
But frankly I'd be nervous to share. I don't even know where it ends up. Because if I'm doing it, so are 50 other people, probably.
Its a bit confusing to claim that "The things your current stack can't give you because it doesn't own the DAG" and use DataBricks as your example: DataBricks includes jobs and pipelines, so it very much owns the DAG, no?
Fair point. Databricks owns a scheduling DAG (Workflows, DLT). What I meant by "owns the DAG" is the semantic DAG: model-to-model dependencies with column-level types that the compiler builds.
Workflows knows task A runs before task B. Rocky knows `dim_customer.email` flows from `raw_users.email_address` through three CTEs in `stg_customers`. Different layer, same word.
I'll be more careful with that framing.
Looks cool, I've been waiting for someone to build this since dbt and SQLMesh acquisition. It would be great to have model versioning and support for ClickHouse SQL.
Thanks. On model versioning — what's the use case you have in mind? A few options that map to different designs:
- dbt-style semantic-layer versions (v1/v2 of a model) - schema migration history - branch-based (Rocky already has branches + replay)
Different design choice for each, so it helps to know which problem you're trying to solve.
ClickHouse is tractable through the Adapter SDK without engine patching. If you can share roughly your model count and workload shape, I can put a real timeline on it. Open to community PRs too.
fyi, llm written comments are discouraged on hackernews.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079
Not saying yours are, but them -- dashes certainly looks like it ;)
Fair. I just use it for tidying up my replies as I'm not a native English speaker.
* * *
Thanks for the careful read. The "what breaks if I rename this column" question is exactly what column lineage from the compiler is meant to answer, and you said it better than I did in the post.
On the schema-grounded AI angle: agreed. The failure mode you describe — structurally valid SQL that joins on the wrong key or aggregates at the wrong grain because the model hallucinated a relationship — is exactly what the compiler is positioned to catch. AI-generated SQL runs through the type checker before it can land, so suggestions that don't validate against the actual DAG never reach the user. NL-to-SQL tools that integrate a compile step would close exactly the gap you're pointing at.
On your two questions:
1. Branch isolation for stateful models — mixed answer, and worth being honest about:
2. Cost attribution. Both bytes scanned and duration are captured per-model in the run record (`bytes_scanned` and duration on `RunRecord`). Budget gating today is on cost (USD) and duration — `max_usd` and `max_duration_ms` in `[budget]` blocks in `rocky.toml`, as independent thresholds. A direct bytes-scanned budget threshold isn't gateable today; the bytes are in the run record for analysis but you can't currently fail CI on "this run scanned more than N TB". Reasonable extension if there's demand.