12 ms·
I'll take the 300x slower non-vibe-coded pg, thanks!
by borplk 1mo ago
I'll take the 300x slower non-vibe-coded pg, thanks!
- refulgentis 1mo agoThey disabled Postgres parallelism to benchmark too. Sigh.
- malisper 1mo agoWe disabled parallelism in the blog post for demonstration purposes. The 300x slower refers to the clickbench numbers[0] where parallelism is enabled [0] https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/#system=+liH|pgrs|gQ&type=-&machine=-6t|ca2|6ax|g4e|6ale|3al&cluster_size=-&opensource=-&hardware=+c&tuned=+n&metric=combined&queries=- https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/#system=+liH|pgrs|gQ&type=-...
- refulgentis 1mo agoWho is "we"?
- malisper 1mo agoMe and Jason, the two people working on the project
- booksock 1mo agohi
- postgresperf 1mo agoThe pgrust team asked me to look at their results on a review system, and I confirmed the ClickBench speedup there. Regular PostgreSQL is really terrible at some of these queries. Unfortunately fixing that is hard to do in core itself because columnar storage lives outside of the main tree, and some optimization problems only show up when layered on columnar.
- malisper 1mo ago^For context, this is Greg Smith, the author of Postgres 9.0 High Performance[0]. That book was my first introduction to Postgres [0] https://www.amazon.com/dp/184951030X https://www.amazon.com/dp/184951030X