these were tests done on pre release builds and some experimental concurrency modes as well.... The engine has since been redesigned and all of these issues have been fixed..

Its also faster than Redis for KV, also numbers show this should be top on clickbench, official submission is in progress

Yeah, but none of those builds should have seen the light of day, given all the problems that were found.

And given the bug churn, something is very wrong with the testing harness. Either there was grossly insufficient testing to start with (indicating the humans involved were not taking the job of building a database server seriously enough), or else the LLM agents were mangling the tests to get the tests green while breaking the code (indicating that there was either no human review or the human reviewers didn't know enough about how the test+code ran to be able to catch the LLMs misbehaving).

What I fear is that the humans will implement more and more layers of LLMs to monitor the LLMs, rather than slow down development and learn what their code actually does.

Why should anyone believe that? I mean it might be true, I don't know. But if such a report turns out many fundamental issues it doesn't quite sound plausible that a redesign would suddenly not have any issues anymore. It might have fewer issues, it likely will have different issues as well though.

Ok sure, so an LLM told you all the bugs are fixed and it’s faster than Redis, just like how it told you before that it was formally verified?

Please try to resist the urge of being a meat proxy.

The fact that they believed this product was anywhere near ready for a Jepsen test means they lack the judgement and engineering competence to credibly provide a database server. It doesn’t matter what their clanker does after they get the report and the tooling - they should have already had coverage for the vast majority of these issues and the fact that they now conform to a test doesn’t mean there aren’t MANY other product issues that will be discovered at the cost of their customers data.

Bro you've got to be kidding. pre-release builds? Aphyr directly addresses this in this analysis. Furthermore, given the absolutely ridiculous nature of some of these bugs, and the low confidence exhibited by the authors in the fixes, how can anyone assume that suddenly things are correct? The database was so janky that it sounds like most of the time was spent on basic bugs that a decent set of unit-tests would've caught. Who knows what wasn't uncovered because the db was so broken to begin with?

I mean did you see the "primary key equality" thing? Holy shit.

> and all of these issues have been fixed..

You can't be sure until they test it again

I look forward to the second report from Jepsen for the new implementation then.

https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/pull/2952