News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Postgres RDS didn't work for us. Parent comment

Re:Why Postgres RDS didn't work for us by tbragin on Saturday February 03, 2024 @06:53PM (#39245969)
Compression helped, but not enough in our experiments https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/#eyJzeXN0ZW0iOnsiQWxsb3lEQi...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Postgres RDS didn't work for us by mfreed on Saturday February 03, 2024 @07:54PM (#39246392)
All depends on the benchmark :)

https://www.timescale.com/blog/what-is-clickhouse-how-does-i...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Postgres RDS didn't work for us by boulos on Saturday February 03, 2024 @09:38PM (#39247014)
Do you have a version using the same instance type? Seems weird to mix them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Postgres RDS didn't work for us by tbragin on Saturday February 03, 2024 @10:24PM (#39247248)
Indeed, ClickHouse results were run on an older instance type of the same family and size (c5.4xlarge for ClickHouse and c6a.4xlarge for Timescale), so if anything ClickHouse results are at a slight disadvantage.

This is an open source benchmark - we'd love contributions from Timescale enthusiasts if we missed something: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Postgres RDS didn't work for us by boulos on Saturday February 03, 2024 @10:35PM (#39247299)
Eh, c6a is also an AMD Rome which has worse memory bandwidth at the tails and weaker per thread performance than Cascadelake (c5). I don't understand anything about this particular benchmark, but I wouldn't compare them simply as "older vs newer".
[ Parent | on HN ]