← Back to home
Comparison · DevOps

osm2pgsql vs Rivet

A side-by-side editorial comparison of osm2pgsql and Rivet — release velocity, themes, recent moves, and the top alternatives to consider.

osm2pgsql vs Rivet: at a glance

Featureosm2pgsqlRivet
SectorDevOpsDevOps
Velocity score0.07.5
Sparks · 30d03
Top themesopenstreetmap, postgis, tile-expiry, lua-scriptingactors, ai agents, sqlite, forking
Last editorial update3mo ago2d ago
WebsiteVisit →—

What is osm2pgsql?

osm2pgsql is rebuilding tile expiry so a small edit stops invalidating a whole lake.

osm2pgsql ships two or three releases a year and the last two carry substantial new machinery. 2.3.0 reworked tile expiry: polygons are now expired by shape rather than bounding box, and an opt-in diff expire mode computes the symmetric difference between an object's old and new geometry so a small edit to a large feature only invalidates the tiles it actually touched. It also added configurable limits on how many tiles one geometry or one run can expire. Before that, 2.2.0 introduced Locators for fast region lookup during import and process_deleted_* callbacks for handling removed objects in Lua.

Read the full osm2pgsql trajectory →

What is Rivet?

Rivet Actors can now fork in 20 ms, SQLite database included, without copying data.

Rivet builds infrastructure for long-lived actors and AI agents: BYOC, OpenTelemetry tracing, actor-scoped JWTs and agentOS Hosted VMs. The 3.0 Preview made Rivet a single stateless binary on S3, and the Rust SDK reached general availability on 6 November. On 11 November Rivet added actor forking: a fork starts in 20 ms with the original actor's state and SQLite database and costs nothing until it writes.

Read the full Rivet trajectory →

osm2pgsql vs Rivet: editorial side-by-side

O
osm2pgsql
DEVOPS
0.0

osm2pgsql is rebuilding tile expiry so a small edit stops invalidating a whole lake.

◆ Current state

osm2pgsql ships two or three releases a year and the last two carry substantial new machinery. 2.3.0 reworked tile expiry: polygons are now expired by shape rather than bounding box, and an opt-in diff expire mode computes the symmetric difference between an object's old and new geometry so a small edit to a large feature only invalidates the tiles it actually touched. It also added configurable limits on how many tiles one geometry or one run can expire. Before that, 2.2.0 introduced Locators for fast region lookup during import and process_deleted_* callbacks for handling removed objects in Lua.

◆ Where it's heading

The project is adding primitives rather than features, and saying so explicitly — 2.2.0 describes Locators and deleted callbacks as building blocks for things users have requested for years. The pattern is to move work that previously happened in the database after import into the import pipeline itself: region tagging via Locators instead of a post-import spatial join, deletion handling via callbacks instead of database triggers. The expiry work follows the same logic, pushing precision upstream so downstream re-rendering does less. The new expiry limits are a defensive addition, added specifically because vandalism or misconfiguration can otherwise generate billions of tiles and exhaust memory.

◆ Prediction

Expect diff expire to move from opt-in toward default once it has been exercised, following the pattern of the middle table format that became default in 1.11.0. The experimental osm2pgsql-expire command introduced in 2.2.0 is the other loose thread — it is explicitly marked as subject to change and has not stabilised.

R
Rivet
DEVOPS
7.5

Rivet Actors can now fork in 20 ms, SQLite database included, without copying data.

◆ Current state

Rivet builds infrastructure for long-lived actors and AI agents: BYOC, OpenTelemetry tracing, actor-scoped JWTs and agentOS Hosted VMs. The 3.0 Preview made Rivet a single stateless binary on S3, and the Rust SDK reached general availability on 6 November. On 11 November Rivet added actor forking: a fork starts in 20 ms with the original actor's state and SQLite database and costs nothing until it writes.

◆ Where it's heading

Rivet keeps turning its S3-backed storage engine into features for agent workloads. Copy-on-write forking follows from the 3.0 storage design and gives agents a cheap way to branch a session, try something and discard it. The SDK and auth work of the past two months points to Rivet positioning actors as the runtime for agent backends.

◆ Prediction

Forking is likely to show up next in agentOS and the Pi integrations as a way to branch agent runs; the entries do not say when 3.0 leaves preview.

Alternatives to osm2pgsql and Rivet

Other DevOps products tracked by Sparkpulse, ranked by recent ship velocity. Each card links to a full editorial trajectory and lets you pivot into a head-to-head comparison with either osm2pgsql or Rivet.

See all osm2pgsql alternatives → · See all Rivet alternatives →

Recent activity from osm2pgsql and Rivet

Latest ship moves from both products, interleaved chronologically. ⚡ = editorial spark.

  1. 2d agoRivetIntroducing OpenOrange: Run Cloudflare Workers Anywhere ⚡
  2. 3d agoRivetIntroducing Actor Forking for SQLite ⚡
  3. 8d agoRivetRust SDK for Rivet Actors Is Now Generally Available
  4. 19d agoRivetIntroducing Rivet 3.0 Preview ⚡
  5. 1mo agoRivetIntroducing agentOS 0.4 & Hosted VMs
  6. 1mo agoRivetIntroducing Pi Durable for Rivet
  7. 4mo agoosm2pgsql2.3.1 fixes a diff-expire segfault with multiple expire outputs
  8. 5mo agoosm2pgsqlDiff expire invalidates only the tiles a change actually touched ⚡
  9. 1y agoosm2pgsqlLocators and deleted-object callbacks land as new primitives ⚡
  10. 1y agoosm2pgsql2.1.1 refuses to update when the flatnode file is missing
  11. 1y agoosm2pgsql2.1.0 makes prepared statements work with connection poolers
  12. 1y agoosm2pgsql2.0.1 fixes schema forwarding and missing binary installation

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between osm2pgsql and Rivet?

They serve adjacent needs but don't currently overlap on shipped themes. Rivet is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 7.5 vs 0.0), with 3 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. See the at-a-glance table above for a side-by-side breakdown of velocity, recent sparks, and editorial themes.

Is osm2pgsql better than Rivet?

Sparkpulse doesn't pick a winner — we score release velocity, not feature parity. Rivet is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 7.5 vs 0.0), with 3 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. For your specific use case, the alternatives sections above list other DevOps products to evaluate alongside.

What are the best alternatives to osm2pgsql?

Top osm2pgsql alternatives in DevOps are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "osm2pgsql alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/osm2pgsql for the full list with editorial commentary on each.

What are the best alternatives to Rivet?

Top Rivet alternatives in DevOps are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "Rivet alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/rivet for the full list with editorial commentary on each.