Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by winrid 709 days 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.

1 comments

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