The title is misleading. AWS acquired DuckLabs, NOT DuckDB. The DuckDB source code is still owned by the nonprofit DuckDB Foundation.
Quote from the article:
"As the CWI representative on the DuckDB Foundation... When DuckLabs spun out of CWI, we created this foundation, which holds all IP of open-source DuckDB, and will continue to do so." - Peter Boncz
AWS did not acquire the DuckDB technology itself, which is MIT-licensed open source and governed by the DuckDB Foundation which holds most of the related IP [1].
What they did acquire is DuckLabs, the Amsterdam-based services and development company behind the technology which is owned by and employs the creators and major contributors.
And MotherDuck is a US-based venture-funded commercial company, whose cloud-based data platform is centered around DuckDB but has been significantly expanded recently, including Python pipelines, an agentic context layer, and a visualisation layer.
Interesting to see how they will update their About page.
Currently it says “Today, DuckLabs remains independent and fully owned by the original creators. We've deliberately chosen not to take venture capital, so we can focus on sustainable engineering, correctness, and keeping DuckDB open and MIT-licensed for everyone. “
Top-level troll: that's not a "version" of Elastic Search, it's a fork of ES specifically created due to ES's licence change that made it more difficult for AWS to extract money from it at Elastic's expense.
Not that I like either actor in this particular play, but this isn't exactly an example of community oriented goodwill on Amazon's part.
This is an important distinction, I hope the title can be changed.
I was really surprised when I first came across DuckDB at how good at it is for its target use cases. It is a game changer for me for the "local analytics" space, and its ability to scale up to a large degree helps a lot.
It is simply awesome to be able to point DuckDB at a mess of CSV and other files and have an instant database on top of it that I can run regular SQL over, and it is fast and just works.
It’s faster than trino and spark for 99% of your use cases. Only once the datasets reach the 100GiB to TiB range is trino/spark faster. Compute is scaling vertically faster than Data Eng/Analytics dataset growth, over time DuckDB will be the better choice.
you raised a good point but (et al) didn't touch on the meaningful questions: where does the "core team" of developers of DuckDB now reside? are they now "captured/cashing-in/getting paid" at AWS, or will meaningful MIT-licensed development of DuckDB continue in a robust way outside of commercial enterprises with proprietary needs that are not aligned with where the project was going?
I'm glad that DuckDB has a foundation in place and hope it is resilient enough to push the DB forward when the time comes.
Out of all the big orgs, Amazon is probably the one that has the least regard for keeping technically interesting projects alive, and the certainly will bulldoze it for some dumb reason when the next re-org comes.
AFAIK Google is much better at not tearing well-working teams apart in reorgs, and letting people go they have acquihired a few quarters earlier.
Of the few examples I have I my head, I'd even say that the fate of a product that has been acquired by Google is probably even better than those of Google's internally developed products. e.g. Waze is still alive and kicking 13 years after acquisition under its own brand and hasn't been completely swallowed by Google Maps. The Nest brand also stuck around for quite some time.
Amazon will drive these people to quit within a couple years over filling out MBRs and threats about how the MBR isn't good enough (MBR = monthly business report, pure bullshit theatre that drives the whole company mad 2/4 weeks every month).
Google would drive them to quit over a longer timeframe, with no threats or harrassment, just because every time they try to ship something cool, someone else has a reason not to do it and that kills you eventually.
> Amazon will drive these people to quit within a couple years over filling out MBRs and threats about how the MBR isn't good enough (MBR = monthly business report, pure bullshit theatre that drives the whole company mad 2/4 weeks every month).
Wouldn't be possible nowadays to LLM your way out of this?
I'm actually curious too, haven't been there in a while. It's possible that the MBR pyramid has become LLM assisted on all sides but the cultural themes are surely all still there.
Honestly, the whole thing felt LLM to start with, tons of people lacking context and throwing words and summaries around.
> Google would drive them to quit over a longer timeframe, with no threats or harrassment, just because every time they try to ship something cool, someone else has a reason not to do it and that kills you eventually.
Yeah, I've never personally worked at any of those places, but collaborated on a few open source projects with Googlers and Xooglers and the slow grinding wheels of their "processes" that wear people down over time were very apparent. Nevertheless, it has been a breeding ground for many interesting technologies, even if it often suffocates them over the long term.
Google has such a much better reputation when it comes to contributing to and understanding open source. It’s unfair to Google to put Amazon above them.
Heck AWS is the sole reason all these projects needed to go through these license changes to prevent AWS from completely destroying their business models.
..a strategy valid in the good ol' days when a complete rewrite of the currently non-licenseable non-protectable underlying desings and ideas would not cost you 200$ on tokens to reimplement in a different or even in the same language.. maybe SW patents will be a thing soon .. and inadvertently become another nail in the coffin of FOSS and SW development in general, who knows
What business model do MIT licensed projects even have? If you want to offer support contracts and actually make people use them, don't use MIT. You can't have you cake (accepting public contributions and free labor) and eat it (sole profiteering) too.
> If you want to offer support contracts and actually make people use them, don't use MIT. You can't have you cake (accepting public contributions and free labor) and eat it (sole profiteering) too.
I can't speak to how successful it is, but Daniel/Curl have been running with this model[0][1] for years. Probably not too different from 'drh and SQLite[2][3].
RMS addressed the business model from the very beginning: it's services and consulting. He practiced what he preached.
You might think that's got a very low ceiling. But, even though it's a bad example in many ways, OpenAI showed that the ceiling is very high. And if you're morally flexible even higher.
RMS would probably agree with you and think that I'm apostate. But there's an open source license for the full spectrum of software authors' preferences. Depending on the circumstances some could turn out to be a poor choice.
I know some lawyers who specialize in these choices. Everyone thinks their choice doesn't smell, but there are the resources to make informed choices.
It helps just fine. The original software is still there, available for anyone to use for free. AWS et al can't take that away from us, no matter what they choose to do with their fork.
When they say "doesn't help", they're talking about the developers of the original software you want to use for free getting to eat food and have a roof over their head.
It has an extremely low ceiling. You literally cannot make consumer-targeted software if you want to survive while writing open-source code. Services and consulting is strictly B2B, and services and consulting for open-source software is capable of supporting a population of like 1% of existing software developers. Advocating for this dogmatic ideal that would cull the field by 99% is ridiculous.
I don't know how you came to OpenAI as an example given that they famously succeeded while going closed-source with the release of ChatGPT.
Red Hat grew on GPL licensed projects to become a $34 billion business. Canonical does the same except it’s Ubuntu not RHEL and charges more than Red Hat.
You really underestimate the value of support contracts.
I'm not seeing how MIT licensing has anything to do with your ability to use support contacts as a business model. Yeah, nothing constrains the potential customer to purchase support, but that's just as true of GPL licensed software. I can download GPL software and never pay a dime for a support contract, just like MIT software.
Some of the largest, highest TPS, highest throughput systems in the world use DDB.
The constraints are what let this happen. Unconstraining it might make a better generalist product but part of what you're opting into with DDB is the dumb "put an item in get an item out semantics" and the other side is knowing that it will still work if that volume increases dramatically.
Thanks, I don't really get any chance to seriously use or manage OLTP databases (mostly working with OLAP ones myself) so it is good to know about this. The 400KB limit is indeed very limiting -- I had to truncate some data because of that.
I wish I could get a role to work on OLTP databases. PostgreSQL seems to be a fascinating topic so that's on my plate.
The reason it's good is because, although it is bad, you never have to worry about it in terms of maintenance, admin or scale. It's like lambda for databases.
For the same price, you can run a much more capable PSQL instance with way better features, but now you're on the hook for it being up 24/7.
It is their previous one. I did read another paper about DynamoDB, but still there is not much details.
For example, I want to know how to calculate the charge of incremental export. One blog says it is charged by the amount of change logs (but the official doc doesn't say so), which makes sense. But how do I estimate the amount? My hunch is: Put + Write + (1~100) * TransitWrite + Update + Delete + (1~25) * BatchWrite.
What good is a foundation when it's core member is owned by a public corporation? Like we know what happens, the pattern isn't unique or rare. Corporate interests will always take priority over community interests, corporations care about profit not community. If Amazon cares about the community as they care about their own workforce, that does not bode well.
> Out of all the big orgs, Amazon is probably the one that has the least regard for keeping technically interesting projects alive
I'm curious what you mean by this. I would have said the exact opposite - AWS tends to keep projects around for a very long time. They haven't acquired very many open-source projects, but the few that they have are all still running as far as I know.
Fig, was one of them but was only partially opens source IIRC. CLI autocomplete and script team sync. Turned into/integrated into Amazon Q, which turned into Kiro CLI, which AFAIK doesn't share any functionality with the original product nowadays.
Congrats to the founders but honestly feel bad for the team. Hearing so many not good things coming from inside AWS these days. Place sounds like a total mess. Seems like a constant stream of top talent fleeing on my LinkedIn this past year.
I hope they just let the team carry on and don’t contaminate it with all the other craziness going on.
They built something amazing and now have a nice exit. The code remains open under a non profit foundation. I don't think it is that bad. If working conditions are too bad people will just quit and work for the foundation.
You make it sound like every worker agreed with this. Is this actually true or is it more about the founders exploiting their workers by selling out to one of the most devious anti-worker tech corporations?
Is profit sharing, like what you're implying, actually happening? If so, in what quantity?
I started using DuckDB last year and I loved it. Small, focused, crackling with competence, no bullshit. I think what I liked about it had a lot to do with it being made by a small group of technical people who weren't interested in "maximizing share holder value" (that is, maximizing executive promotions and bonuses).
Maybe this will be the rare case where founders survive corporate shenanigans and keep on doing their thing. But I'm bummed, as I've heard that optimism many more times than I've seen it happen.
Honestly, there's just a huge amount of thrash across the cloud & SaaS industries as a whole. It's not a lot better at Google (way behind OAI & Anthropic on coding & local AI harnesses), Microsoft (no meaningful frontier model R&D to speak of, and a constantly eroding Windows business), the neoclouds (impossible to source adequate infrastructure and are existentially threatened by the hyperscalers (especially Google) if they can't keep up with demand, chipmakers (NVIDIA vs AMD vs Qualcomm vs Apple vs the long tail of specialty shops like Cerebras), data center pure plays (legislative & community pushback, natural resources, infrastructure availability), and the SaaS folks ("let's see if AI can do it").
It's both a great time to be gold mining in tech, and also a terrible time to be a bit employee.
Any indication yet as to whether Quack, DuckLake, real-time materialized views dev will continue full-steam ahead? B/c myself and i know of many others very interested in seeing these efforts completed... :crossed-fingers:
Very much doubt it’s generational wealth. I’m not sure how much people think open source companies are worth, but the path to VC-scale profitability is incredibly rare.
My guess is that Amazon wants official hosted versions and doesn’t want to go through something like the Redis fiasco with licensing. In that case, they ended up having to support their own development anyway (with Valkey), so they might as well just buy the team.
DuckDB team probably gets a nice package and pay bump, but it’s really unlikely they’re getting hundreds of millions from this.
How much do you really need for generational wealth? In my opinion, if you're more than 10 years away from retirement and received a surprise $1 million, you're setup for the rest of your life and your children as well assuming they don't immediately blow it all when you die (that's what a good trust should be for).
Assuming historical returns, your money doubles roughly every 7 years, so within the rest of your lifetime, that 1 million should turn into at least 8. That's an extremely comfortable upper-middle-class lifestyle on the interest payments alone. If your children don't spend it all, your grandchildren would easily have private jet money by the time their parents retire.
1 mil is not generational wealth in the US. It is a big chunk of money, no doubt. It’ll buy a reasonable 2-3 bedroom house in the city I live in, with nothing left over. No one’s definition of generational wealth involves not touching the money for two generations…
We must be operating on different definitions. Generational wealth means you have enough money to meaningfully improve the lives of your kids and give them a leg-up on life. A million dollars is enough to buy a house for each of your 2.5 kids.
If getting a million dollars wouldn't affect how much money you can leave your kids, you already have generational wealth.
> If getting a million dollars wouldn't affect how much money you can leave your kids, you already have generational wealth.
Well said.
Where I live, one million dollars would allow me to pay off my house, open healthily sized investment accounts for my kids, pad my investment account, setup a trust and, overall, set my family up for a comfortable life in the future. I don't see how that isn't generational wealth.
Generational wealth is where you can also do all of the above for your kids and potentially their grandkids as well.
Basically the bar is higher than "something you can pass down". It is enough that the next generation does not need to worry about making money either.
Generational wealth generally is used to mean something like you and at least your children can live very comfortably off of investment income for the rest of your lives, I.e. none of you have to work for a living. That’s why sibling’s def of 1.5-5m per child is much closer to the commonly understood meaning.
We can debate “live comfortably” if you want, but no 4.5 people are doing that from the investment proceeds of 1m.
What you are describing is kind of more like social mobility.
Generational wealth is generally used to describe not just a comfortable personal retirement but your children and their children and so on never needing to work if they are remotely responsible with the money.
> If getting a million dollars wouldn't affect how much money you can leave your kids, you already have generational wealth.
Generational wealth is definitely not "affect[ing] how much money you can leave your kids." That's an equivocation - if you're leaving your kids a dollar, another dollar will "affect how much money you can leave your kids."
edit: you need a million dollars to securely retire at all, and that's if your parents, kids, or you don't get sick. If they do, a million is not only not "generational wealth" but it may not even last you three years.
I have to agree, yurishimo's assumption of returns is wildly optimistic.
At a more sane expected return of 5% annually, you get $50k a year to live off of to just keep what you have (or rather, watch it slowly erode in value due to inflation).
That is basically a one person income, maybe two adults if you pinch pennies and live in a crappy apartment or a low-end house in a midwestern suburb.
You can get a lot more lucky with a million bucks than you can with 10k if you gamble, but there are no guarantees. Risk tolerance is the most impactful variable. For those in the low risk tolerance group, I think you'd need at least 2 mil these days. And that's with being frugal, as well as probably not having much left over for kids.
Assuming you're investing aggressively and not touching that money for the next 20 years, with the nominal return of 6% per year, adjusted for the inflation rate of 3% per year, 1M will increase to 1.8M. Not sure how you came up with 8M.
To do that, you would have to never touch the money and invest aggressively. Most wouldn’t do that unless they didn’t need the money, i.e. already rich so not newfound wealth.
You would also have to train your kids to responsibly use the money without demonstrating it, as you’d just be hoarding it. People don’t have a good track record there, either.
I think the best you could do generationally with a million would be to try to invest moderately and draw down a small percentage (2-3%) to demonstrate fully considered use of the money. This would keep you in a middle class income but give you more ability to donate charitably, vacation together, let one spouse retire earlier, solve a financial crisis for a child, etc.
Letting them in on the thinking would give them a good chance to handle a high six/low seven figure inheritance, depending on how the investing goes.
I'd agree with that sentiment but that number would be more like $5M (which is nothing in the context of this acquisition). Inflation is not going to relent and having enough to actually enjoy some of that payout to have pseudo FU money and leave enough invested for children and grandchildren (a well-managed trust).
Buying a house in desirable areas is going to be in the ~ $1M range, college is going to be hundreds of thousands, etc.
> I’m not sure how much people think open source companies are worth, but the path to VC-scale profitability is incredibly rare.
MotherDuck, a semi-competitor of theirs has raised $100mil in funding. DuckLabs has reportedly taken no external funding (so all ownership is with the founders) and was profitable with 30+ employees.
On the sidelines, other companies behind beloved open source products, like Astral, Astro, Bun are getting bought left and right.
With that as a backdrop, I think they should have been able to get quite a good payout.
DuckLabs is the company that does consulting and DuckDB development, the DuckDB foundation actually owns DuckDB the project.
The DuckDB foundation owns some equity in MotherDuck, which is a data lakehouse platform based on DuckDB, and all three have been moving closely together in making DuckDB better locally as well as in the role of a query engine that really threatens a lot of amazon's role in data lakehouses. DuckDB in the hands of a good team means that you can use AWS almost only for storage, instead of using any of the managed services.
This is a real shame. I love DuckDB, and we've adopted/extended it and ducklake very heavily at Krea for our research.
I know the projects will remain open, and ostensibly still contributed to in the same direction, but surely AWS thinks of this as another piece of a product suite to compete with Databricks.
Nontheless, I think the open embedded query engine approach DuckDB is spearheading is larger than one project, and I remain excited about the broader ecosystem (especially datafusion).
Seems like a good time to recommend Apache Datafusion. It's designed to be a library, but works pretty well standalone as well. There's a CLI version, but also Python and Java bindings, as well as a Rust library, of course.
From my own experience I can say it integrates far better into your Rust app than DuckDB does.
No, it's a competing ecosystem, even though both are built on Apache Arrow, and their dataframe APIs might look similar on the surface.
DataFusion is being used as a building block for a growing number of databases and data processing engines in Rust, as it offers the necessary primitives.
It's all about tradeoffs. Same reason there are so many kinds of wheeled transport and so many kinds of bridges.
There's no single set of requirements and desired properties that people have for databases.
What queries does it accept? How does it persist data? How does it manage replication and partitioning across multiple servers? Are questions with many answers and the right one varies by application.
> What queries does it accept? How does it persist data? How does it manage replication and partitioning across multiple servers? Are questions with many answers and the right one varies by application.
nothing prevents to build single database which would cover all such answers. Its engineering, funding and distribution problems: no-one built it yet.
Practicality and wisdom prevent trying to fill all the database niches with a single product.
Even if you did it, I'd be surprised if a single code base is optimal across the spectrum from resource constrained microcontrollers all the way up to IBM Z Series mainframes and everything in between; along with the full spectrum of persistence from in-memory MRU (or similar) caching to full two phase global consensus as well as optimistic eventual consistency.
There's just too much scope to be the best in class at everything, and even if somehow you did it, the maintenance cost of all the options would be huge.
Best you'll get is as computing continues to increase, the cost of using less than the best becomes more reasonable. There's a lot of database applications where any reasonable database works, and there's a lot of databases that are reasonable in wide application. That may well lead to fewer databases being available, but it's unlikely to converge down to a single database. Just as most engineering domains don't converge down to a single solution for all applications.
is a marginal niche, but everything else can be handled by one DB.
You think we have PG with extensions (including duckdb) already covers most of the ground, making something like that distributed is also feasible task (there are project), architecting system to make core engine embeddable is also feasible task.
My attempt at an answer: no, databases are not solved.
Specifically, different databases are better or worse for different use-cases.
For example, Postgres is a great "all around database" - you can use it for a lot of different things. As a "relational" database, it's really good if you have a table full of users, a table full of order, and you want to see all orders made by a user with ID=123. You need to answer questions like that a lot (eg every time someone on a website loads a page) and you need the answer fast (hundreds of miliseconds at most)
However, say your use-case is more like... you've got 100 billion rows of billing data ("joe was charged $123.45 on 2026-03-07 for a shirt, blue, size 11, brand foobar") in one table. You don't care much about joe, but you want to be able to find out how much was billed, total, in 2026-03 for blue shirts (or all year for brand foobar, or all time, for size 11). Postgres would struggle with data of that volume - you'd need a really big expensive database. A "columnar" database like duckdb (or clickhouse) might be able to answer those questions better.
Anyway, different databases are better/worse for:
- Large piles of data that you need to query in seconds
- Huge (petabytes) of data that you need to query in minutes, but can query in parallel
- Many related piles (like a standard relational database)
- Cases where you're mostly getting or retrieving single items (key-value stores)
- Huge piles of data that represent a long stream of events in time (time-series datbases)
- Piles of data that look and act more like files (object stores)
- When you need strict transactions
- When your need is very write-heavy
- When your need is very read-heavy
- and probably many others - I'm not even a huge data guy :)
So it all depends on your use-case. There are still cases that are not served well by any existing database - eg "filtering billions of rows, in milliseconds, by an arbitrary portion of several dozen very-high-cardinality columns" (to use an example that came up recently for me IRL) :)
DuckDB is really great. It's definitely the best tool for working with any type of tabular laptop-sized analytical data. You can do some of what DuckDB does with SQLite, but DuckDB is much more versatile and performant.
There’s trade offs for performance, access patterns, throughput, latency, concurrency, workloads, rigor, type systems, extensibility… really every characteristic you could imagine.
It’s not a solved problem because each iteration of technology doesn’t just fix the mistakes of the past, it’s an evolution to solve the problems of the present.
This is an enormously wide question but the quickest way to give you an idea would be rephrasing as:
"Are cars not a solved problem? Why are there lots of different cars? Why is one faster than the other? What's different between them?"
I think the best way to approach the subject in an easy to grasp way is to ask Gemini or another frontier AI to teach you the basics, they will do a surprisingly good job and they'll be able to react to your questions with INFINITE patience.
What do you mean by solved problem? I don't own DuckDB (sqlite, postgresql, etc). If I think I can create something as good or better than DuckDB, should I give up doing so (and get filthy rich with an acquisition) because someone thinks databases are solved? Solved databases aren't mine.
I was a real fan from the very beginning, but now DuckDB 2.0 "as a server" and 5. asynchronous I/O [1] looks aimed at something very different from what I thought first.
agree - I was really uneasy with the lede in their v2.0 preview:
"DuckDB has been an in-process database since day one. But people have asked us – very persistently – for a client/server mode, and we have finally caved"
This was already satisfied by numerous projects and products, and feels like a "me too" attempt to capture AI-based workflows. DuckDB always felt like "SQLite for Analytic Data" but I fear these changes and now acquiring the org leading technical direction is where they deviate for good. AWS is so unnecessary for what DuckDB can (and should, IMO) be; MongoDB jumps to mind as a cautionary tale.
I didn't even necessarily mean diverting from the mission, just that optimising for network storage now reads like a feature maybe prioritised in anticipation of a stronger cloud user base
Hey, MotherDucker here!
We've been working closely with the DuckLabs team since day one, and the collaboration will continue!
You can read more here: https://motherduck.com/blog/duckdb-amazon/
TL;DR AWS will either acquire MD next/soon, or (more likely) keep them around for the optics that they are totally not going to starve the community of anything other than DuckDB as a hosted AWS service.
From the MD "about page":
The idea for MotherDuck came after Jordan Tigani, MotherDuck co-founder and chief duck-herder, saw DuckDB in action and thought, “Wow, this is amazing! someone should really build a serverless version.”
...
Hannes and Mark, who founded DuckLabs to focus on the core technology and build the world’s best analytics database, were looking for partners who would build a commercial cloud offering.
1 month later: "Re-writing DuckDB in Rust with Claude Ultra". There is a curios phenomenon, big tech uses great open source projects as a guinea pig for experimenting agent-based development approaches, see Bun, AstroJS.
That seems unlikely because AWS needs to build proprietary features within their services to lock in paying (enterprise) users. The problem now is that labs will inevitably focus on this work, which I view as opposed to local, in-process when your paycheque comes from selling hosted services.
I made a prediction that motherduck will be acquired by GCP. But I could not imagine duckdb labs will be acquired by AWS. I do not think of AWS as a serious contender in the data space. So, we have now Pola.rs and motherduck in the market. Who will acquire them? I believe Microsoft has brought in a fair few industry talent to build their Azure Fabric product. Then you also have AI companies that are buying devtool/utility companies left and right.
AWS rarely acquired startups, though leveraging someone else's tech is a typical pattern. It did license ParAccel and sold it as Redshift. It also runs Athena, which is based on Trino (a Presto fork).
Now, with Snowflake and Databricks earning big bucks in the intelligence era, time to gain market share by having DuckLabs under its ownership?
Wow congratulations for the original authors, but I hope it doesn't impact the users. I can imagine that it is very useful for AWS because they don't exactly have something similar.
I use DuckDB extensively for local dev as well as a parquet viewer.
I wasn't expecting this, and I am pleasantly surprised. I think AWS has been a bad player in the data space and very much behind all the other warehouse providers for many years now. This could lead into interesting integrations of DuckDB on top of all the data that lives in S3 and provide a leaner, faster and a more modern alternative to Athena.
Feel like AWS got a lot of the concepts right with S3 Tables* ("serverless" Iceberg catalog on top of S3) ... would love, love to see a version of S3 Tables that lets you choose between Ducklake or Iceberg as the catalog.
* Cloudflare also seems to have gotten the same idea right with R2 Data Catalog
I am happy for the team's success but I am sad and anxious for what may become of the DuckDB. It is my favorite tool. Like other comments mentioned, DuckDB is open source and MIT license so I hope it will survive and evolve further the way it did.
I am a big fan of the Duck team since before their v1.0 and I am happy for them personally for the big payoff, both in monetary terms but also in terms of scale and longer-term viability of their baby. I am also happy to see the arrangement will keep the core OSS. Let's see what the future holds now!
> "The DuckDB project is governed by the non-profit DuckDB Foundation . The Foundation and DuckLabs are not funded by external investors (e.g., venture capital)."
But "(Last updated: Aug 2026)" and I was not able to find this text anymore.
I wonder if they took vc money after all. I guess not, but still, it seem like to be difficult to live as an independent open source company. Getting a big co as a parent/sponsor is probably the next best thing.
Probably removed because DuckLabs is owned by Amazon now so it’s kind of confusing. Maybe Amazon said, “just take it down, our lawyers will approve some language.”
I've been eyeballing DuckDB and LanceDB as part of AI agent memories.
This gives me a vibe that AWS will use DuckDB somehow in their ai agents sometime in the near future after seeing the potential.
Yes. AWS has OpenSearch for cloud-first vector searches (disregarding cloud-hosted postgres with extensions etc). It's ridiculously expensive and not as fast.
DuckDB to the rescue.
Also embed the crap outta DuckDB locally in local agents running on VPS, etc
Devs gotta eat. Yeah the code is out there but the code is a result of a lot of thinking, prioritization, research into what is needed from the actual product. So now AWS owns that mindshare and talent and will (probably heavily) influence its decisions. I just hope DuckDB doesn't stray from its goal of being the SQLite (e.g. embedded) OLAP.
Never. When it comes to me I am just a poor hustler, surviving a s/w job to make ends meet. When it comes to open source I am gonna hold those guys to highest standard, code, github behavior, tweets, everything must live up to best human ideals.
So give your tools, your life, free bug fixing, priority attention to me because I am getting my paid job done. Why they need money anyway, they can leave on reputation of OSS contributors. Also not to forget I donated 5 dollars last year so now give me full certified audit of your finances of last 5 years.
"We also worried that scaling DuckLabs into a much larger sales, support, and operations organization would pull our attention away from the technical work and open-source community that made DuckDB successful in the first place."
Given AWS's services arm seems like a good play for a team. Congrats!
This doesn't even make sense. Postgres is and has been open source since the 90s and AWS has had an existing Postgres offering since approximately always.
I guess this will be a good test of the open source model DuckDB has opted into.
As I understand it, DuckDB is MIT-licensed and governance is provided by a separate, non-profit DuckDB foundation. This was done explicitly to prevent BSL-ification.
I'm very curious to see whether that approach holds the line. I wouldn't bet on it, but one can hope?
Quote from the article:
"As the CWI representative on the DuckDB Foundation... When DuckLabs spun out of CWI, we created this foundation, which holds all IP of open-source DuckDB, and will continue to do so." - Peter Boncz
AWS did not acquire the DuckDB technology itself, which is MIT-licensed open source and governed by the DuckDB Foundation which holds most of the related IP [1].
What they did acquire is DuckLabs, the Amsterdam-based services and development company behind the technology which is owned by and employs the creators and major contributors.
And MotherDuck is a US-based venture-funded commercial company, whose cloud-based data platform is centered around DuckDB but has been significantly expanded recently, including Python pipelines, an agentic context layer, and a visualisation layer.
[1]: https://duckdb.foundation/
[2] https://ducklabs.com/
[3] https://motherduck.com/
Currently it says “Today, DuckLabs remains independent and fully owned by the original creators. We've deliberately chosen not to take venture capital, so we can focus on sustainable engineering, correctness, and keeping DuckDB open and MIT-licensed for everyone. “
Future will tell if that ends up being true.
Hah. Never have I ever heard a sentence that described Amazon less.
Not that I like either actor in this particular play, but this isn't exactly an example of community oriented goodwill on Amazon's part.
Yes I think motherduck is going to get ... well motherducked bad by AWS
>Independence: We are fully founder-owned and not externally funded. Our priorities align with the long-term health of the project and its users.
I was really surprised when I first came across DuckDB at how good at it is for its target use cases. It is a game changer for me for the "local analytics" space, and its ability to scale up to a large degree helps a lot.
It is simply awesome to be able to point DuckDB at a mess of CSV and other files and have an instant database on top of it that I can run regular SQL over, and it is fast and just works.
Out of all the big orgs, Amazon is probably the one that has the least regard for keeping technically interesting projects alive, and the certainly will bulldoze it for some dumb reason when the next re-org comes.
Of the few examples I have I my head, I'd even say that the fate of a product that has been acquired by Google is probably even better than those of Google's internally developed products. e.g. Waze is still alive and kicking 13 years after acquisition under its own brand and hasn't been completely swallowed by Google Maps. The Nest brand also stuck around for quite some time.
Amazon will drive these people to quit within a couple years over filling out MBRs and threats about how the MBR isn't good enough (MBR = monthly business report, pure bullshit theatre that drives the whole company mad 2/4 weeks every month).
Google would drive them to quit over a longer timeframe, with no threats or harrassment, just because every time they try to ship something cool, someone else has a reason not to do it and that kills you eventually.
Wouldn't be possible nowadays to LLM your way out of this?
Really no idea, just asking.
Honestly, the whole thing felt LLM to start with, tons of people lacking context and throwing words and summaries around.
Yeah, I've never personally worked at any of those places, but collaborated on a few open source projects with Googlers and Xooglers and the slow grinding wheels of their "processes" that wear people down over time were very apparent. Nevertheless, it has been a breeding ground for many interesting technologies, even if it often suffocates them over the long term.
Heck AWS is the sole reason all these projects needed to go through these license changes to prevent AWS from completely destroying their business models.
I can't speak to how successful it is, but Daniel/Curl have been running with this model[0][1] for years. Probably not too different from 'drh and SQLite[2][3].
[0] https://curl.se/support.html
[1] https://rock-solid.curl.dev/
[2] https://sqlite.org/support.html
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49272832
You might think that's got a very low ceiling. But, even though it's a bad example in many ways, OpenAI showed that the ceiling is very high. And if you're morally flexible even higher.
When a bigger entity (e.g. AWS) decides to undercut the original creator/vendor (e.g. redis,elastic search), MIT code des not help.
I know some lawyers who specialize in these choices. Everyone thinks their choice doesn't smell, but there are the resources to make informed choices.
I don't know how you came to OpenAI as an example given that they famously succeeded while going closed-source with the release of ChatGPT.
You really underestimate the value of support contracts.
100 items max per Transaction BatchGet 100 items, 16 MB max low write limits on same key Item size 400 KB max etc.
The constraints are what let this happen. Unconstraining it might make a better generalist product but part of what you're opting into with DDB is the dumb "put an item in get an item out semantics" and the other side is knowing that it will still work if that volume increases dramatically.
I wish I could get a role to work on OLTP databases. PostgreSQL seems to be a fascinating topic so that's on my plate.
For the same price, you can run a much more capable PSQL instance with way better features, but now you're on the hook for it being up 24/7.
For example, I want to know how to calculate the charge of incremental export. One blog says it is charged by the amount of change logs (but the official doc doesn't say so), which makes sense. But how do I estimate the amount? My hunch is: Put + Write + (1~100) * TransitWrite + Update + Delete + (1~25) * BatchWrite.
I'm curious what you mean by this. I would have said the exact opposite - AWS tends to keep projects around for a very long time. They haven't acquired very many open-source projects, but the few that they have are all still running as far as I know.
I hope they just let the team carry on and don’t contaminate it with all the other craziness going on.
Is profit sharing, like what you're implying, actually happening? If so, in what quantity?
What big corp is not a total mess?
The things I hear from recent AWS departures are very concerning.
Maybe this will be the rare case where founders survive corporate shenanigans and keep on doing their thing. But I'm bummed, as I've heard that optimism many more times than I've seen it happen.
It's both a great time to be gold mining in tech, and also a terrible time to be a bit employee.
My guess is that Amazon wants official hosted versions and doesn’t want to go through something like the Redis fiasco with licensing. In that case, they ended up having to support their own development anyway (with Valkey), so they might as well just buy the team.
DuckDB team probably gets a nice package and pay bump, but it’s really unlikely they’re getting hundreds of millions from this.
Assuming historical returns, your money doubles roughly every 7 years, so within the rest of your lifetime, that 1 million should turn into at least 8. That's an extremely comfortable upper-middle-class lifestyle on the interest payments alone. If your children don't spend it all, your grandchildren would easily have private jet money by the time their parents retire.
If getting a million dollars wouldn't affect how much money you can leave your kids, you already have generational wealth.
Well said.
Where I live, one million dollars would allow me to pay off my house, open healthily sized investment accounts for my kids, pad my investment account, setup a trust and, overall, set my family up for a comfortable life in the future. I don't see how that isn't generational wealth.
Basically the bar is higher than "something you can pass down". It is enough that the next generation does not need to worry about making money either.
We can debate “live comfortably” if you want, but no 4.5 people are doing that from the investment proceeds of 1m.
What you are describing is kind of more like social mobility.
Generational wealth is definitely not "affect[ing] how much money you can leave your kids." That's an equivocation - if you're leaving your kids a dollar, another dollar will "affect how much money you can leave your kids."
edit: you need a million dollars to securely retire at all, and that's if your parents, kids, or you don't get sick. If they do, a million is not only not "generational wealth" but it may not even last you three years.
At a more sane expected return of 5% annually, you get $50k a year to live off of to just keep what you have (or rather, watch it slowly erode in value due to inflation).
That is basically a one person income, maybe two adults if you pinch pennies and live in a crappy apartment or a low-end house in a midwestern suburb.
You can get a lot more lucky with a million bucks than you can with 10k if you gamble, but there are no guarantees. Risk tolerance is the most impactful variable. For those in the low risk tolerance group, I think you'd need at least 2 mil these days. And that's with being frugal, as well as probably not having much left over for kids.
You would also have to train your kids to responsibly use the money without demonstrating it, as you’d just be hoarding it. People don’t have a good track record there, either.
I think the best you could do generationally with a million would be to try to invest moderately and draw down a small percentage (2-3%) to demonstrate fully considered use of the money. This would keep you in a middle class income but give you more ability to donate charitably, vacation together, let one spouse retire earlier, solve a financial crisis for a child, etc.
Letting them in on the thinking would give them a good chance to handle a high six/low seven figure inheritance, depending on how the investing goes.
Common definition is somewhere between 1.5 to 5 million per child.
Buying a house in desirable areas is going to be in the ~ $1M range, college is going to be hundreds of thousands, etc.
MotherDuck, a semi-competitor of theirs has raised $100mil in funding. DuckLabs has reportedly taken no external funding (so all ownership is with the founders) and was profitable with 30+ employees.
On the sidelines, other companies behind beloved open source products, like Astral, Astro, Bun are getting bought left and right.
With that as a backdrop, I think they should have been able to get quite a good payout.
The DuckDB foundation owns some equity in MotherDuck, which is a data lakehouse platform based on DuckDB, and all three have been moving closely together in making DuckDB better locally as well as in the role of a query engine that really threatens a lot of amazon's role in data lakehouses. DuckDB in the hands of a good team means that you can use AWS almost only for storage, instead of using any of the managed services.
I know the projects will remain open, and ostensibly still contributed to in the same direction, but surely AWS thinks of this as another piece of a product suite to compete with Databricks.
Nontheless, I think the open embedded query engine approach DuckDB is spearheading is larger than one project, and I remain excited about the broader ecosystem (especially datafusion).
From my own experience I can say it integrates far better into your Rust app than DuckDB does.
Well over 100 monthly contributors, too.
Indexes, transactions, a first-class storage format are all things that come included with DuckDB, that you won't have with Datafusion.
DataFusion is being used as a building block for a growing number of databases and data processing engines in Rust, as it offers the necessary primitives.
Are databases not a solved problem? Why are there lots of different databases? Why is one faster than the other? What's different between them?
There's no single set of requirements and desired properties that people have for databases.
What queries does it accept? How does it persist data? How does it manage replication and partitioning across multiple servers? Are questions with many answers and the right one varies by application.
nothing prevents to build single database which would cover all such answers. Its engineering, funding and distribution problems: no-one built it yet.
Even if you did it, I'd be surprised if a single code base is optimal across the spectrum from resource constrained microcontrollers all the way up to IBM Z Series mainframes and everything in between; along with the full spectrum of persistence from in-memory MRU (or similar) caching to full two phase global consensus as well as optimistic eventual consistency.
There's just too much scope to be the best in class at everything, and even if somehow you did it, the maintenance cost of all the options would be huge.
Best you'll get is as computing continues to increase, the cost of using less than the best becomes more reasonable. There's a lot of database applications where any reasonable database works, and there's a lot of databases that are reasonable in wide application. That may well lead to fewer databases being available, but it's unlikely to converge down to a single database. Just as most engineering domains don't converge down to a single solution for all applications.
is a marginal niche, but everything else can be handled by one DB. You think we have PG with extensions (including duckdb) already covers most of the ground, making something like that distributed is also feasible task (there are project), architecting system to make core engine embeddable is also feasible task.
My attempt at an answer: no, databases are not solved.
Specifically, different databases are better or worse for different use-cases.
For example, Postgres is a great "all around database" - you can use it for a lot of different things. As a "relational" database, it's really good if you have a table full of users, a table full of order, and you want to see all orders made by a user with ID=123. You need to answer questions like that a lot (eg every time someone on a website loads a page) and you need the answer fast (hundreds of miliseconds at most)
However, say your use-case is more like... you've got 100 billion rows of billing data ("joe was charged $123.45 on 2026-03-07 for a shirt, blue, size 11, brand foobar") in one table. You don't care much about joe, but you want to be able to find out how much was billed, total, in 2026-03 for blue shirts (or all year for brand foobar, or all time, for size 11). Postgres would struggle with data of that volume - you'd need a really big expensive database. A "columnar" database like duckdb (or clickhouse) might be able to answer those questions better.
Anyway, different databases are better/worse for:
- Large piles of data that you need to query in seconds
- Huge (petabytes) of data that you need to query in minutes, but can query in parallel
- Many related piles (like a standard relational database)
- Cases where you're mostly getting or retrieving single items (key-value stores)
- Huge piles of data that represent a long stream of events in time (time-series datbases)
- Piles of data that look and act more like files (object stores)
- When you need strict transactions
- When your need is very write-heavy
- When your need is very read-heavy
- and probably many others - I'm not even a huge data guy :)
So it all depends on your use-case. There are still cases that are not served well by any existing database - eg "filtering billions of rows, in milliseconds, by an arbitrary portion of several dozen very-high-cardinality columns" (to use an example that came up recently for me IRL) :)
It’s not a solved problem because each iteration of technology doesn’t just fix the mistakes of the past, it’s an evolution to solve the problems of the present.
"Are cars not a solved problem? Why are there lots of different cars? Why is one faster than the other? What's different between them?"
I think the best way to approach the subject in an easy to grasp way is to ask Gemini or another frontier AI to teach you the basics, they will do a surprisingly good job and they'll be able to react to your questions with INFINITE patience.
What do you mean by solved problem? I don't own DuckDB (sqlite, postgresql, etc). If I think I can create something as good or better than DuckDB, should I give up doing so (and get filthy rich with an acquisition) because someone thinks databases are solved? Solved databases aren't mine.
1) https://duckdb.org/2026/08/17/duckdb-20-highlights
"DuckDB has been an in-process database since day one. But people have asked us – very persistently – for a client/server mode, and we have finally caved"
This was already satisfied by numerous projects and products, and feels like a "me too" attempt to capture AI-based workflows. DuckDB always felt like "SQLite for Analytic Data" but I fear these changes and now acquiring the org leading technical direction is where they deviate for good. AWS is so unnecessary for what DuckDB can (and should, IMO) be; MongoDB jumps to mind as a cautionary tale.
And DuckLabs is the engineering behind DuckDB.
If I'm correct, this seems like a signal that AWS is coming after the segment of customers wanting to host DuckDB (MotherDucks customers).
Correct me if I'm wrong though, please.
From the MD "about page":
The idea for MotherDuck came after Jordan Tigani, MotherDuck co-founder and chief duck-herder, saw DuckDB in action and thought, “Wow, this is amazing! someone should really build a serverless version.”
...
Hannes and Mark, who founded DuckLabs to focus on the core technology and build the world’s best analytics database, were looking for partners who would build a commercial cloud offering.
Now, with Snowflake and Databricks earning big bucks in the intelligence era, time to gain market share by having DuckLabs under its ownership?
I use DuckDB extensively for local dev as well as a parquet viewer.
* Cloudflare also seems to have gotten the same idea right with R2 Data Catalog
Otoh, I am glad those guys got paid.
learn about it here: https://query.farm/haybarn/
Presumably the issue is Haybarn-specific?
The CI extension build runs are still public on GitHub, but may have expired, if you bump your git sha ref it will rerun.
Looks like this is the failed build https://github.com/Query-farm-haybarn/haybarn-community-exte... but logs have expired
Current Google cache of this page states:
> "The DuckDB project is governed by the non-profit DuckDB Foundation . The Foundation and DuckLabs are not funded by external investors (e.g., venture capital)."
But "(Last updated: Aug 2026)" and I was not able to find this text anymore.
I wonder if they took vc money after all. I guess not, but still, it seem like to be difficult to live as an independent open source company. Getting a big co as a parent/sponsor is probably the next best thing.
I've been eyeballing DuckDB and LanceDB as part of AI agent memories. This gives me a vibe that AWS will use DuckDB somehow in their ai agents sometime in the near future after seeing the potential.
DuckDB to the rescue.
Also embed the crap outta DuckDB locally in local agents running on VPS, etc
So give your tools, your life, free bug fixing, priority attention to me because I am getting my paid job done. Why they need money anyway, they can leave on reputation of OSS contributors. Also not to forget I donated 5 dollars last year so now give me full certified audit of your finances of last 5 years.
"We also worried that scaling DuckLabs into a much larger sales, support, and operations organization would pull our attention away from the technical work and open-source community that made DuckDB successful in the first place."
Given AWS's services arm seems like a good play for a team. Congrats!
https://github.com/shreeve/duckdb-harbor
one feature I can't wait from the DuckDb team are real-time materialized views.
I hope the future for DuckDB is still bright
As I understand it, DuckDB is MIT-licensed and governance is provided by a separate, non-profit DuckDB foundation. This was done explicitly to prevent BSL-ification.
I'm very curious to see whether that approach holds the line. I wouldn't bet on it, but one can hope?
https://query.farm/haybarn/
Or
https://github.com/Query-farm-haybarn
I've been releasing the versions all the way since 1.5.3 and all community extensions.
What does this mean? Can I easily sign my own private extensions with my own key?
We are currently allowing unsigned extensions, loading them, then locking the duckdb config to prevent loading unsigned/untrusted extensions
In 1.5 - Haybarn has its own signing key, but its much faster to get extensions released and deployed.
On the other hand, do we have to live in an oligarchy?