6 ms·
I've been using clickhouse-local for quite some time, instead of DuckDB. There is also chDB. After using pandas for 10 years, I favor SQL now, for some reason.
by f311a 13d ago
I've been using clickhouse-local for quite some time, instead of DuckDB.
There is also chDB.
After using pandas for 10 years, I favor SQL now, for some reason.
- mihaelm 13d agoMaybe because it's like a swiss army knife for data work, regardless of whether you need it for OLTP or OLAP workloads. Having different SQL dialects is a bit annoying, but the base is the same more or less, so switching doesn't come at too big of a cost.
- efromvt 13d agoAs a huge duckdb fan, I'd love to see chDB to get proper windows support - that would make it real competition (having WASM coverage is already a big step) which would be good for the space as a whole.
- Kydlaw 13d agoI haven't tried chDB yet, but I heard about it. Thank you for reminding me of that option. I use SQL in data pipelines and processing that is going to require interoperability. But for data exploration, I usually prefer Polars (imo it is easier to work with text, semi-structured data, etc.)
- geysersam 13d agoInteresting, why do you typically prefer clickhouse local to duckdb?
- f311a 13d agoBecause we use regular CH in production. I'm pretty familiar with it and I can always run large queries on a production server with 1TB of RAM. Regular CH also support external data sources, so I can read 500GB of JSON from S3 and group by it on production server very fast and in memory.