[arp242]

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

[winrid]

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]

If the alternative takes hours, then ~30 seconds seems high performance to me.

[winrid]

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. :)