Since benchmarks can be misleading I want to point out that the differences between Hydra and the "tuned"[0] PostgreSQL (which are some very basic settings) are a lot less convincing, with plain old PG coming ahead on quite a few: https://tinyurl.com/eju9tht2
I also noticed quite a bit of parity between Hydra and Citus on data set size. Is Hydra a fork of Citus columnar storage?
I found that is common among these types of databases (e.g. Citus, Timescale, etc.) which perform well under very specific conditions, and worse for many (most?) other things, sometimes significantly worse.
That said, Hydra does take up ~17.5G for that benchmark and "PostgreSQL tuned" about 120G, the insert time is ~9 times faster, and "cold run" is quite a bit faster too. It's only "hot run" that shows a fairly small difference. I think it's fair to say Hydra "wins" that benchmark.
> Is Hydra a fork of Citus columnar storage?
Yes: "Hydra Columnar is a fork from Citus Columnar c. April, 2022".
I'm sure you can, but AFAIK neither uses compression in that benchmark so it's a fair comparison. Even if filesystem compression would reduce that to 17.5G (doubtable), it won't be free in terms of CPU cycles, and no matter what it's still ~120G to load in memory, bytes to scan/update, etc.
I don’t see why the GitHub link is any harder to click than the tiny url link in that post.
I’m pretty sure the only reason url shorteners exist with purpose is because of Twitter limits (and software that doesn’t visually hide egregiously long urls), but continues to be used outside of those places due to cargo culting
https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/#eyJzeXN0ZW0iOnsiQXRoZW5hIC...