Item — HN Reader

Ouf. I don't know. I don't want to call you out without evidence -- I myself make benchmark claims all the time -- but 50% improvement in OLTP seems suspicious. I get that you used a standard benchmark, and I don't even know what it entails, but my spidey sense is going off. Perhaps, some trade off somewhere that won't make it to prod because it breaks MVCC -- and yes, I saw that it passes regression tests.

Just checking, is fsync on? :) Regression tests don't catch bad IO patterns afaik.

Anyway... sounds like a fun project to work on!

3 comments

Remember when databases were faster to run in virtualbox rather than bare metal? (because virtual box was completely ignoring all the instructions to flush the data on the disks)

Yeah, claims that it can be faster than CH are very suspicious. CH guys are very good at their craft, they spend hundreds of hours optimizing one single small detail.

Yeah. I don't think PG could even come close. Column-oriented is fundamentally different, and pairs well with all the SIMD acceleration ClickHouse is also doing. There's just no comparison. If a Postgres rewrite came close to that, it must've sacrificed something else.

It'd be very unfortunate if Postgres didn't have regression tests for data loss due to bad io patterns. Should be possible to do some checks against those in an appropriate test harness. Which might mean "have qemu run something we can kill off and examine the results".

If those don't exist, I hope folks recognize how useful they are and add them.