So why are you posting this? If I have to do the work of benchmarking? More importantly, why should I trust you, if you didn't bother making your article trus

So why are you posting this? If I have to do the work of benchmarking? More importantly, why should I trust you, if you didn't bother making your article trustworthy? Working many years in storage, I can engineer a benchmark that will show that CSV is faster than Parquet. So what? > having an embedded schema CSV also has embedded schema, that's what the header row is. Your arguments are just poor / show insufficient research / insufficient ability to interpret results. If you wanted to make that argument stronger / believable, you should've at least claimed that Parquet has better schema than CSV. But this is also a problematic claim, because your idea of "better" comes from a perspective of making something more universal. But, in particular cases, I could, for example, come up with a CSV header that would be able to communicate more type information than what's available in Parquet, and subsequently, beat Parquet on that metric. Anyways. My bigger point: maybe you are right, but you don't make a compelling case.