|
| ▲ | shawabawa3 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| So, the charge was that they submitted a build specifically tuned for clickbench The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else... Doesn't feel like much of a defense to me. At best it's benchmaxxing if not clear outright cheating |
| |
| ▲ | malisper an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else. ClickBench tests a very narrow set of SQL: scans, aggregations, sorts, and filters. It ends up being a great starting point for building a query engine before layering in more functionality | |
| ▲ | throwaway894345 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The defense was that it wasn't specifically tuned for clickbench, it was just an early incomplete build that happened to only support exactly and clickbench queries and nothing else... According to both the ClickHouse founder who was levying the accusations and the pgrust creator, the submission worked for many other queries it just didn’t have full SQL support. |
|
|
| ▲ | LtWorf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Insinuating that I didn't read is against this website's rules. Using a throwaway account to reply is suspicious to say the least. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway894345 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Insinuating that I didn't read is against this website's rules. Fair enough, I edited my comment. > Using a throwaway account to reply is suspicious to say the least. My account is older than yours and has ~7x the activity. Maybe you mean “using an anonymous account is suspicious”? |
|
