3 ms·
No, there are no indexes in QuestDB in the article. None. Zero. That's bold mistake in the ClickHouse article. Should be named Yes, QuestDb is Faster.
by olluk 4y ago
No, there are no indexes in QuestDB in the article. None. Zero.
That's bold mistake in the ClickHouse article. Should be named Yes, QuestDb is Faster.
- Dzugaru 4y agoYeah, I've read more carefully and it seems they're doing full scan.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bastawhiz 4y agoWhy does the lack of indexes matter? Especially when the size on disk is so much higher? Defining a sensible index isn't an unreasonable or daunting task, and minimal effort in CH got a 4x speedup over QuestDB. "It's faster if you invest literally zero time making it efficient" doesn't offer any practical benefit to anyone. If it was demonstrated that Quest did a better job overall in the majority of cases where an optimization would have been missed, that's one thing. But this feels awfully nitpicky.
- jerrinot 4y agoThe article is not _just adding an index_. They are embedding one of the search fields in a table _primary key_. That likely means the whole physical table layout is tailored for that single specific query. While it can help to win this very benchmark it's questionable whether it's usable in practice. Chances are an analytical database serves queries of various shapes. If you only need to run a single query over and over again then you might be better off with a stream processing engine anyway.
- bastawhiz 4y agoThe primary key is, in effect, an index. Specializing on the latitude field of a table of geographic data seems like an incredibly small thing to nitpick.