I certainly understand your skepticism. Everyone is busy and can't go chasing after every shiny new object. My system is faster for a number of reasons. 1) I h

I certainly understand your skepticism. Everyone is busy and can't go chasing after every shiny new object. My system is faster for a number of reasons. 1) I have a unique way of storing the data in a compact format. Each value is de-duped and reference counted to save space and speed lookups. 2) I have a number of algorithms that use hashing, bloom filters, and other techniques in combination that I think are superior. 3) I utilize the multi-core features of modern processors for individual queries. With multi-threading I can run different parts of the same query in parallel. Other DBs like Postgres have made some progress in this area, but I think they have run into trouble trying to port their old architecture to take advantage of this. So if you have a query such as: "SELECT col5, col7, col10 FROM <table> WHERE (col5 ILIKE 'A%') AND (col7 < 10000) AND (col10 ILIKE '%Hello%); the system can find the matching keys for each column in parallel. Like I said, there might be instances where the same query on another system will be faster, but on Didgets a broad range of queries are about 4x - 10x faster in my tests. It will certainly take more than a few minutes to evaluate every feature, but it should only take a few minutes for someone to figure out that I am not just blowing smoke.