Logseq DB Version Release Schedule?

Questions & Help
1

Is it possible to know even an approximate schedule for when the Logseq DB version will be released as an installable version not web version? With a major feature overhaul progressing, it seems challenging to recommend the current version to others. I believe it would only be feasible to recommend it to others if the DB version is released as an installable version, even if just for beta testing.

6 Likes
2

Sorry, we have no idea when Logseq DB will be stable enough to build and test the local apps. With this version still in full development, we push changes several times a day. We donā€™t have the time at this moment to optimize for local apps, as it would take away from the development work.

Weā€™re working as fast as we can, but regardless we recommend against new users adopting Logseq DB anytime soon. Thatā€™s because the UI and possibly the data model will change a lot, which will only confuse new users. I wouldnā€™t want to recommend Logseq DB until itā€™s feature-complete (as in: has at least the features that Logseq MD has at this moment).

Sorry for not giving a clear answer, but I also donā€™t want to give a false impression of the state of Logseq DB (or that itā€™s close to beta release). If you want to recommend Logseq, just recommend Logseq as it is now. The current experience will be the default for at least another year, after which new users will have more than enough experience and comfort to migrate to Logseq DB.

With tens of thousands of current (power) users, focus will be on a smooth migration regardless, so thereā€™s no reason for people to not start using Logseq simply because Logseq DB is in the pipeline.

7 Likes
3

I guess there are exceptions. Iā€™m waiting for db before I move over to logseq.

Although I want to switch to logseq, the app Iā€™m currently using is quite good. So in my case, it makes more sense to just stay where I am and wait for db.

I understand Logseq will do its best to provide a smooth transition from md to db. But there will be significant changes. On top of that, some of the main features that make me want to move to logseq are db-only anyway.

Not disagreeing with what was said, just adding my own perspective!

2 Likes
4

Thank you for that horizon. As I already have 3400 pages in LogSeq and this seems to be too much, at least for the mobile version, this will force me to start with other applications which support mobile notetaking better. I was so happy about LogSeq going the DB way in April 2024 but since then I was using it more trusting in the development but since now could not feel any progress in the development. Iā€˜m sad to say bye bye at least for some year(s)

5

That is your good right. And honestly, I donā€™t expect the mobile experience to change anytime soon as there are no concrete plans to revamp it, nor do we have a mobile dev on the team/contributing from the community who could tackle it.

As for you not feeling the progress, that is perception and depends on how closely you follow the development of Logseq DB. For those who use https://test.logseq.com (which are several hundreds, many of whom use Logseq DB as their ā€œdaily driverā€), there are several updates each day. You can also see an overview of what has changed here:

2 Likes
6

Thank you for updating us on the current situation.

Iā€™ve been using the existing version of Logseq effectively for organizing my thoughts and managing tasks. One of Logseqā€™s strengths, in my opinion, is that it offers a well-defined workflow to follow, unlike other tools where you start with a blank page and have to create everything from scratch.

Nevertheless, the reasons I hesitate to recommend the current version to others and am waiting for the DB version are due to performance issues and limitations with Queries. Quite a few people I know have stopped using Logseq, especially when editing long pages, running queries with many results, or syncing, due to slow response times. Also, managing lists by page type or task status is essential, yet solving this with Clojure queries can be an intimidating experience for those unfamiliar with coding.

For beginners who are not developers, despite the streamlined workflow, these two issues make the existing version of Logseq difficult to use. I believe the DB version could address these problems, so I am willing to wait for it, even if it takes some time.

5 Likes
7

I really like logseq, but as I written before, you clearly have chosen a bad architecture and still donā€™t want to comprehend that. You need a rewrite with a good rust core and attach front-end like tauri. Writing sofware without static types gets you in debugging hell once it becomes larger.

clojure is just utter pain to use/write. Thatā€™s why you get very little contributions - I know of no other software that is written in that language and has actual traction.
Proof: pull request breakdown - 0.072% tells a story

1 Like
8

Thanks for this update. So just to understand this better, will it also continue to be the case over the next year that lingering minor issues with the current experience will mostly not be prioritized, in order to focus development resources on the DB version? (An example of such an issue would be the following: "Network connection testing failed" - when offline? )

1 Like
9

I canā€™t speak about the entire year, but in the first quarter of 2025 I expect all focus to be on Logseq DB and sync/real-time collaboration.

However, many small issues from Logseq MD are either already fixed or are planned to be fixed. But until Logseq DB is merged back into the main branch, the Logseq MD and Logseq Org will not have these fixes.

As for the post you linked to, I canā€™t say anything sensible about it as itā€™s lacking any context. For example, is that person using Logseq Sync or another tool for syncing? Because in the case of Logseq Sync, very big changes are coming that will remove many current issues.

2 Likes
10

Thanks, that all makes sense and is helpful.

(As for the offline issue, I thought it was well-known and I had seen it discussed elsewhere. I can start another thread if necessary, but basically on multiple platforms, when using Logseq Sync, going offline seems to trigger unnecessary error messages most of the time, which feels odd for an offline-first app. But perhaps this will be affected by the upcoming changes you mention.)

2 Likes
11

Yes, this will be tackled.

One of the reasons for Logseq DB is that the team noticed they canā€™t make Logseq Sync more ā€œrobustā€ than it is now and need a better storage solution. So, Logseq Sync as it is now for will remain like that until we launch Logseq DB with the improved sync system.

12

Does that mean that the Org will stay after DB release? I kind of had a feeling you are dropping it and plan to merge MD and DB at some point with some two-way sync.

1 Like
13

Yes, weā€™ll keep the current formats/modes as options (next to DB).

Two-way sync is one of the options, yes, and one we want to focus on. However, itā€™s also a very complex challenge and one we canā€™t imagine fully tackling in the next year. In many ways, Logseq already does this at this moment (it has both an in-memory database for temporary storage and MD/Org files for persistent storage). So, the first step is to improve the database by leaps and bounds before we can tackle two-way sync.

5 Likes
14

For all, wanting to follow the progress, check the Changelog: Logseq DB - Changelog - #2 by danzu

2 Likes
15

I view the move to database as a sign that LogSeq is being used in a way that places demands on data throughput, which databases tend to manage better than file mechanisms. Thatā€™s good. It suggests that LogSeq taps a real demand for knowledge management.

Still, I do love Org-mode, and I already use the Org files of LogSeq on my phone, in an experimental way, to share data with Orgzly-revived. Orgzly isnā€™t so great at knowledge management, but it does have a widget for Android that I use for tracking tasks. Iā€™m also planning to investigate Org-Roam interaction with LogSeq, for when Iā€™m on Emacs.

So I do hope Org-modeā€™s value as a data interchange format is recognized by the LogSeq team. Lock-in is not conducive to knowledge management. Please keep the link open.

1 Like
16

@Ramses What is the best way to support LogSeq team at this time to insure you have the ability to proceed into 2025?

1 Like
17

I could even imagine some sort of ā€œsupportersā€ subscriptionā€¦ on a yearly or even monthly basis. Most of us would pay for it. Butā€¦ Would the current global community of users paying for that make any development difference?

I saw there is the:

Backers

Support us with a monthly donation ($5) and help us continue our work! Early access to insider builds and special badges in the Logseq Discord server. Backers have exclusive access to Logseq Sync (in beta; you can enable it via Settings > Features).

18

Org mode will be one of the supported formats (next to the existing Markdown format and the new Database format). DB will just be one of the selectable format options (as is now in settings).

If youā€™re talking financially, the best way to support us is by donating to our Open Collective: https://opencollective.com/logseq

Once we feel Logseq Sync is stable enough for large-scale use, we plan to launch a proper subscription plan. Current backers and sponsors (on Open Collective) will get the ability to ā€œlock inā€ a lower price, as a thank you for supporting us via Open Collective these years.

5 Likes
19

If one chooses DB, which will be the syntax with which one writes their pages? Will one be able to write with Org syntax in the DB option?

20

Only Markdown syntax will be supported in Logseq DB, as per the documentation:

  • Markdown is the only supported format. Org mode file graphs will be able to convert to DB graphs.

If you want to use Org syntax, youā€™ll have to stick with the plain text modes.

1 Like