5 ms·

They're all on different hardware. Are they really that comparable?

• bdcravens 6y ago
  No, but I think each piece of software is put in a proper context, to match what most would commonly use in that particular use case. For example, the Clickhouse benchmarks are run against typical modest cloud instances.
  • tmostak 6y ago
    To be fair, the c5d.9xlarge instances are $1.728 each per hour, or $5.18 for the 3-server cluster (looks to be about $3.06/hr for reserved 1-year pricing). Even with reserved pricing, that's $26,806 a year, or 6.5X more than a $4K laptop that likely will last for years and would be bought anyway (or at least a cheaper variant, which would also run these queries nearly as quickly). Of course that's very apples-to-oranges, so another way to look at this is that OmniSci would probably see significantly better performance on a single c5d.9xlarge than what we saw on this Mac (would need to benchmark, but informally I can say that OmniSci was 2-3X faster running on CPU on my Linux workstation compared to my Mac). Disclaimer: No disrespect to ClickHouse here, it's an amazing system that I'm sure beats out OmniSci for certain workflows.
    • shaklee3 6y ago
      The biggest loss for omnisci was the in-memory limits. The highest end GPUs have 32GB, while you can find CPU servers with multiple TB. As soon as you spill out of that you take a big performance hit.