Softwr

Databases · head to head

DuckDB vs turbopuffer

DuckDB logo

DuckDB

Databases

MIT-licensed analytical SQL database that runs inside your process, with no server, no dependencies and one writer at a time.

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
turbopuffer logo

turbopuffer

Databases

Closed-source vector and full-text search service built directly on object storage, with cold queries measured in seconds rather than milliseconds.

From
$16/month
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only DuckDB has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: DuckDB a database file accepts one read-write process at a time; other processes must open it read-only and will not see subsequent writes, so DuckDB cannot be the shared database behind several services.; turbopuffer a cold namespace pays object storage latency on the first query, with a documented p90 around 1,214 ms on a million documents, so any interactive search box needs the data kept warm or the user waits about a second.
  • They diverge on capability: DuckDB covers In-process execution, turbopuffer covers Object storage architecture.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which DuckDB and turbopuffer actually diverge.

Attributes where DuckDB and turbopuffer differ
AttributeDuckDBturbopuffer
Starting priceFree$16/month
Pricing modelopen-sourcesubscription
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows, WebAssemblyWeb
Founded2019Unknown

Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated), category (Databases).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in DuckDB

  • In-process execution
  • Vectorised columnar engine
  • Direct file querying
  • Zero dependencies
  • Larger-than-memory queries
  • MIT licence
  • Postgres-flavoured SQL
  • Extension ecosystem

Only in turbopuffer

  • Object storage architecture
  • Namespaces
  • Vector search
  • Full-text search
  • Attribute filtering
  • Documented limits
  • Configurable consistency
  • Durable writes

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

DuckDB

  • Transformation steps in a data pipeline that would otherwise need Spark, replaced by SQL over Parquet in a single processnot turbopuffer
  • Analytical queries embedded in an application or a dashboard where shipping a database server alongside it is not acceptablenot turbopuffer
  • Local exploration of files that are too large for a pandas dataframe but far too small to justify a warehousenot turbopuffer
  • Continuous integration and testing of analytical SQL, where a real engine can run in the test process without provisioning anythingnot turbopuffer

turbopuffer

  • A product with one search index per customer and thousands of customers, most of whose data is idle on any given daynot DuckDB
  • Very large corpora where holding every vector in memory is the dominant cost and occasional cold-query latency is acceptablenot DuckDB
  • Hybrid retrieval combining BM25 and vector search where running and synchronising two separate systems is the problem being solvednot DuckDB
  • Retrieval for agent and assistant products where indexes are created and destroyed frequently and per-index overhead must be near zeronot DuckDB

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

DuckDB

  • A database file accepts one read-write process at a time; other processes must open it read-only and will not see subsequent writes, so DuckDB cannot be the shared database behind several services.
  • There is no network protocol, authentication or user management, so exposing it to remote clients means writing and securing your own service around it.
  • It is built for scans and aggregations, not for many small transactions, so a workload of high-frequency single-row inserts and updates performs badly compared with SQLite or Postgres.
  • Storage files are backwards compatible but not forwards compatible, so a file written by a newer version cannot be read by an older one and every consumer of a shared file must be upgraded together.
  • Query memory settings matter: some operations still need to hold significant state, so an under-configured memory limit turns a large join or a high-cardinality aggregation into a spill-heavy query or an out-of-memory failure rather than a slow success.

turbopuffer

  • A cold namespace pays object storage latency on the first query, with a documented p90 around 1,214 ms on a million documents, so any interactive search box needs the data kept warm or the user waits about a second.
  • Queries are eventually consistent by default, and after roughly 128 MiB of outstanding writes new data is invisible until indexed, which the vendor puts at tens of seconds for small namespaces and tens of minutes for large ones, so a bulk re-index is not immediately queryable.
  • It is closed source with no community edition, so single-tenant or bring-your-own-cloud deployment is a commercial negotiation rather than a deployment choice, and there is no path to running it yourself if the relationship ends.
  • Per-namespace ceilings, roughly 10,000 writes per second, 32 MB/s and 500 million documents per shard, mean a single enormous index has to be sharded across namespaces by your application rather than by the service.
  • It is a search engine, not a database: there are no joins, no cross-document transactions and no SQL, so it sits beside a primary datastore and keeping the two in step is work that belongs to you.

Pricing, plan by plan

DuckDB

Free

No published plan breakdown. See the DuckDB review.

turbopuffer

$16/month
  • Launch$16/month
    • All database features
    • Multi-tenancy deployment
    • SOC2 & GDPR-ready DPA
  • Scale$256/month
    • Everything in Launch
    • HIPAA-ready BAA
    • Single Sign-On (SSO)
  • Enterprise$4096/month
    • Everything in Scale
    • Single-tenancy & BYOC deployment options
    • Private networking

Which should you pick?

Choose DuckDB if

  • You need in-process execution.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, WebAssembly.
  • You also want vectorised columnar engine.
DuckDB review

Choose turbopuffer if

  • You need object storage architecture.
  • You also want namespaces.
turbopuffer review

Questions people ask

Is DuckDB or turbopuffer better?
Neither clearly leads. DuckDB starts at Free and turbopuffer at $16/month, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, DuckDB or turbopuffer?
DuckDB has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for DuckDB and $16/month for turbopuffer.
Does DuckDB or turbopuffer run on more platforms?
DuckDB runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, WebAssembly. turbopuffer runs on Web.
Can I use DuckDB for free?
Yes. DuckDB has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. turbopuffer starts at $16/month.
What is DuckDB best used for?
DuckDB is most often used for transformation steps in a data pipeline that would otherwise need spark, replaced by sql over parquet in a single process, analytical queries embedded in an application or a dashboard where shipping a database server alongside it is not acceptable, local exploration of files that are too large for a pandas dataframe but far too small to justify a warehouse, continuous integration and testing of analytical sql, where a real engine can run in the test process without provisioning anything. Of those, transformation steps in a data pipeline that would otherwise need spark, replaced by sql over parquet in a single process and analytical queries embedded in an application or a dashboard where shipping a database server alongside it is not acceptable are not what turbopuffer is typically brought in for.
What can DuckDB do that turbopuffer cannot?
DuckDB covers In-process execution, Vectorised columnar engine, Direct file querying, Zero dependencies. turbopuffer covers Object storage architecture, Namespaces, Vector search, Full-text search.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

DuckDB: Can multiple applications share one DuckDB database?

Not for writing. One process holds the database read-write; others may attach read-only and will not see later writes. Shared multi-writer access needs a different database or a table format with a catalogue.

turbopuffer: Can I self-host turbopuffer?

There is no open source or community edition. Single-tenant and bring-your-own-cloud deployments exist as commercial arrangements, but there is no way to run it independently of the vendor.

DuckDB: Is it a replacement for a data warehouse?

For single-node analytical workloads up to a few hundred gigabytes it very often is. It is not a replacement when many concurrent users need a shared, governed, always-on service.

turbopuffer: How fast is it really?

Warm queries perform comparably to in-memory search engines. Cold queries, where data is not cached, have a documented p90 around 1,214 ms on a million documents. Write p90 is around 248 ms for a 512 KB upsert because writes go straight to object storage.

DuckDB: Do I have to load data into it?

No. It queries Parquet, CSV, JSON and Arrow in place, including on object storage. Its own storage format is optional and mainly useful when you want indexes, constraints and faster repeated access.

turbopuffer: Is it consistent?

Eventually consistent by default, with the vendor reporting that over 99.8% of queries return consistent data. Strong consistency can be requested per query at a latency cost. Large write bursts have a longer visibility delay while indexing catches up.

DuckDB: What is MotherDuck's relationship to it?

MotherDuck is a separate company offering a managed and hybrid service built on the DuckDB engine. DuckDB itself remains MIT-licensed and independent of it, with the IP held by the DuckDB Foundation.

turbopuffer: What is it best at?

Large numbers of namespaces where most are idle. The architecture makes cold data cheap to keep, which is exactly the shape of a multi-tenant product with a long tail of inactive customers.

DuckDB: Is it suitable for OLTP?

No. It is designed for analytical scans. For transactional workloads with frequent small writes, SQLite or Postgres is the right tool.

turbopuffer: What are the hard limits?

Up to 128 billion documents and 256 TB per namespace, 500 million documents per shard, 64 MiB per document, 10,752 dense vector dimensions, roughly 10,000 writes per second per namespace and a maximum result set of 10,000.

Share

Related pages

More on DuckDB

More on turbopuffer

Keep looking

Other head to heads