3 ms·
Yeah, I agree sqldf is quite slow. Fair point. As you've seen, duckdb registers an "R data frame as a virtual table." I'm not sure what they mean by "yet" eith
by phillc73 6y ago
Yeah, I agree sqldf is quite slow. Fair point.
As you've seen, duckdb registers an "R data frame as a virtual table." I'm not sure what they mean by "yet" either.
Of course it is possible to write an R dataframe to an on-disk duckdb table, if that's what you want to do.
There are some simple benchmarks on the bottom of the duckdf README[1]. Essentially I found for basic SQL SELECT queries, dplyr is quicker, but for much more complex queries, the duckdf/duckdb combination performs better.
If you really want speed of course, just use data.table.
[1] https://github.com/phillc73/duckdf https://github.com/phillc73/duckdf
- kristjansson 6y agoDidn't realize duckdf was your package. Cool! Definitely something I'll consider for future work, though I spend more time on the Spark-and-Python side of the fence these days. If you wanted to add corresponding memory benchmarks the value-prop of duckdf might be clearer to those of us that have been scarred by sqldf :).
- phillc73 6y agoSounds like it could be an interesting comparison. I'll look into it.