{
  "id": 18517003,
  "title": "0.85ms writes: I re-ran Firenook's 40x claim on a 4-core VM",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/11/06/0-85ms-writes-i-re-ran-firenooks-40x-claim-on-a-4-core-vm",
  "topic": "tech",
  "section": "Tech",
  "published": "2026-11-06T15:11:12.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dev.to",
    "slug": "dev-to",
    "url": "https://dev.to/frankchu/085ms-writes-i-re-ran-firenooks-40x-claim-on-a-4-core-vm-4m82"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "On 2026-11-06, 0.85ms ran a retest of Firenook's claim that its Rust Firebase emulators are 40 times faster than Google's official ones. Firenook asserts a median write time of 5.1 ms compared to Google's official 208.2 ms. To verify, 0.85ms installed Firenook, ran 300 writes, 100 reads, and 20 queries on a 4-vCPU VM, and cross-referenced the results with Firenook's published data. The median write time for Firenook was 0.85 ms, matching their claim. However, the key difference lies in how the benchmarks were conducted. Firenook's 5.1 ms includes a triggered function and listener delivery, while the author's test did not. Additionally, Firenook's restart time of 0.59 seconds was verified, compared to the official emulator's 30.8 seconds with data kept. The author concluded that while Firenook offers sub-millisecond writes and a faster restart, the initial claim of being 40x faster is only partially accurate due to differences in testing methodology.",
  "summary": "0.85ms writes: I re-ran Firenook's 40x claim on a 4-core VM Firenook claims its Rust Firebase emulators write 40x faster than Google's official ones: 5.1 ms median against 208.2 ms. I installed it, ran 300 writes, 100 reads, and 20 queries against it on a 4-vCPU VM — and then audited their benchmark data, because a 40x claim deserves a second look. My median write was 0.85 ms. The claim holds up,…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}