Definitely some good points, but a few comments: - I don't think performance is secondary as put here, but perhaps closer to binary. As in: does it perform wel

Definitely some good points, but a few comments: - I don't think performance is secondary as put here, but perhaps closer to binary. As in: does it perform well enough? Check. Now let's move onto judging everything else. In this sense, it's not secondary because before you can work on anything else you need to work on performance. Else you're not even at the table. Once you're at the table it's a different story though. The author points this out themselves: "I should mention that DuckDB is fast". If it wasn't, then you probably would be competing on performance, at least until you got that "performant" tick out of the way. - "The one [database engine] who is moving most quickly will be the one that wins in the end": Perhaps a valid-ish point, but certainly not practical. Acceleration isn't constant. Your progress will be much faster as a new player in the space, but if you manage to get to where e.g. Snowflake is, your progress will certainly slow down. So as someone choosing a system today, I can't just judge by today's acceleration and extrapolate that it will continue into the future. So overall some good points in there, but the conclusions feel a bit off for me. Although this: "how quickly you can go from idea to answer, not query to result" is a point I'd love to see explored. Feels interesting enough to warrant its own investigation.