[niviksha]

hi - i took a look at the sqlite db. not to nitpick, but you have 4 indexes there?

the overhead of indexes at tiny data sizes like this is minimal, so no surprise that sqlite or pg will compare favorably at laptop scale (FWIW, i ran this on a 4-core macbook pro with no GPU (i.e CPU only) and without indexes, mapd runs the query at ~1.5 sec while sqlite takes ~6).

however, the bigger point is about how this experience scales. take a look at this public demo - https://www.mapd.com/demos/ships. it's 11 billion geo data points, and you'll see the same low millisecond response that FridgeSeal is talking about - again, no indexing (to verify, go to dev tools in your browser, turn on SQLLogging(true) in the console and look at the query times reported for the round trip. i'm sure you appreciate that the overhead (both creation and maintenance) of indexing scales with data size, plus sqlite/pg dont (AFAIK) offer anything by way of GPU-rendered charting.

[aw3c2]

Of course I use indexes. It's utterly silly not to do so.

My point was that the submitted post did not make a convincing argument pro MapD when query times are that much slower than a trivial SQLite database.

[niviksha]

i'm not questioning your use of indexes. i'm questioning the basis of the unqualified assertion that 'query times are slower than a SQLite database' - with indexes off, and both running on CPUs, the basis of comparison isn't tilted one way or the other, and then it isnt clear at all that mapd is 'much slower'.