> Worth being clear about this run: the shards were primary-only with no replicas, the workload is read-only across queries ranging in complexity, and we did no

> Worth being clear about this run: the shards were primary-only with no replicas, the workload is read-only across queries ranging in complexity, and we did not fail over during the measured window. No HA either, or backups I assume.(single AZ?) But think the point of it was not to benchmark PostgreSQL but to demonstrate the linear scalability of the shared-nothing/stateless routing architecture. I think this was already known from Vitess though, which shares the same architecture. Also, as part of a new product release benchmarking shit like this internally is cool/interesting, why not blog about it. The more cynical side of me says it was a money burning exercise to give the marketing team a number to tweet about. :)