> "Getting good performance without having to know much about the ecosystem" is pointless, because choosing a tool is all about learning how to wield it. It's t

> "Getting good performance without having to know much about the ecosystem" is pointless, because choosing a tool is all about learning how to wield it. It's true about any tool, even something like a hammer. There is no complete understanding of any non-trivial system, even for its authors. There is a question of how much one can understand in a reasonable amount of time, and what fraction of a perceived ideal one can achieve. Some systems have steeper curves than others. > This article is worthless because the results are not useful to anyone for anything. Doing serious benchmarks requires a particular and fairly rare set of skills. It is not worthless because there is some code posted to run it. Someone could beef up the corpus (it's pretty small right now) and apply their tweaks (or try other data types like hstore, or other indexing strategies). This person tried his/her best and put something together. I agree the benchmark is pretty flawed, but given the thankless (and often adversarial!) nature of running benchmarks and publishing results, I'm grateful for anyone who does one and then publishes the code.