kjellsbellsan hour ago
The database wars of the late 1990s were full of this kind of stuff. Oracle, Sybase, IBM etc invested heavily in tuning specifically for benchmarks like TPC-C just so they could post ads in the Wall St Journal saying theirs was faster.
I do sympathize with OP, though, their objection to measuring cold-start queries is incomplete without also describing how often cold start needs to happen. If you restart once every five years then it doesnt matter as much if it takes 20 minutes to be warm. Every hour, that would be a real problem.
jaapz16 minutes ago
Anyone here using QuestDB in production? What is your use case? What is your experience?
We want to migrate away from InfluxDB eventually (because of their 180 on OSS, and their tendency to reinvent the product every major release), and QuestDB seems like an interesting option.
bitlad3 hours ago
Reminds me of the recent Terminal Bench controversy [1][2][3]
If theres a benchmark, people will cheat, lie and optimize for that benchmark. Honest depends on the compliance enforced on teams. But if, compliance itself is weak, it is going to be taken advantage of. Like growing up india, you would optimize for the exam and not what you learn from it.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47920787
N_Lens2 hours ago
Same with LLM benchmarks these days.
Metaluiman hour ago
Well, the pelican benchmark is easily verifiable.
dkdcdev29 minutes ago
see also “ Fair Benchmarking Considered Difficult: Common Pitfalls In Database Performance Testing” by the DuckDB folks with a classic Figure 1
ozgrakkurtan hour ago
Really respectable writing and perspective. Questdb blog posts that get posted here never disappoint