Hacker News Reader

Comment by malisper | Hacker News Reader

Or the third explanation is we didn't cheat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50209450

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50210444

That comment doesn't evidence cheating, it reiterates that they submitted the result prematurely which was already admitted in the comment that your link was responding to.

EDIT: removed a lament that people don’t read comments they respond to, in case this violates the site rules.

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

> 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.

So what is the point of benchmarking it?

Whenever people benchmark something my default assumption is that they want to know how well it performs, but I’m not the author and can’t speak to their intentions.

> 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

where's the sourcecode for 0.4-preview?

I see what I can do. I'll need to audit it to see if we can release it

Why though?

You might steal some proprietary vibes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com