3 ms·
That benchmark looks like its made to hide inefficiencies, if I understand it correctly. Like why is JSON serialization time not included? If you made the inter
by jnordwick 10y ago
That benchmark looks like its made to hide inefficiencies, if I understand it correctly. Like why is JSON serialization time not included? If you made the interface JSON over HTTP, you should have to live with the performance implications.
I notice they only compare against free versions. I wonder if they have tried against any of the commercial vendors? The comercial vendors right now tend to lead the FSS pack by a very large gap.
- mfreed 10y agoWe've been using this framework to avoid the appearance of crafting our own that cherrypicks only our strong suits. Don't disagree with comments that you should account for JSON serialization cost in your benchmarks, but that's a criticism of the suite, not Postgres/Timescale/our numbers. To be clear: our tests are all using the standard PostgreSQL interface, not JSON-over-HTTP. And we don't exclude any SQL parsing time in the DB.
- jnordwick 10y agoI tried to read it a little more, that it is incredibly confusing to me. Did you have issues with that too? I have access to a couple commercial products, but just trying to find the basics to run are difficult. STAC was so much easier to understand. Give dataset, X, how fast does query Y return.