[solid_fuel]

Ah yeah, what I figured. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Don't get all mad when someone calls you out on it.

By the way, just so you have some concept of what the actual problem is despite your resistance to education:

Simply switching from processes to threads will not yield the claimed performance increases. A 300x improvement on analytic workflows? From a direct transliteration? Your BS alarms should be going off. They should be screaming "5 Alarm Fire".

The only way they got that increase was by breaking the synchronization mechanisms that provide ACID guarantees in Postgres, otherwise a direct rewrite would expect very similar performance.

[rjh29]

The author was talking about eliminating memory being copied between processes. That's a performance improvement. I don't know how the 300x improvement was made or whether that's even real - you should really be arguing with the author about that. I didn't seriously put stock into it because you know, they used AI to rewrite it. I doubt their testing methodology is sound.

I appreciate the condescension though. Thanks for teaching stupid old me how a database works.

[solid_fuel]

> Thanks for teaching stupid old me how a database works.

You're welcome, someone had to.