3 ms·

So for a one-off query DuckDB is tons faster, and easier.

• winrid 2y ago
  yeah, but it's not high performance, which was my original point. I spend a lot of time optimizing stuff developers thought was "high performance" and they're scanning a 100gb+ dataset on every page load.
  • arp242 2y ago
    If the alternative takes hours, then ~30 seconds seems high performance to me.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • winrid 2y ago
      DuckDB is indeed great for one off stuff. But calling 30s high performance for quantifying 60k unique values like in this case is misleading at best. I try not to mislead people. :)