PostgreSQL just like most RDBMS uses filesystem as a backend. It cannot be faster than the filesystem it uses to store its data. At best, you may be able to configure it to use more caching, and then it will be "faster" when you have enough memory for caching...
What does that have to do with my comment? I didn't say say that an RDBMS is faster than a filesystem, just that your statements about them "seeing serious drops in performance when it comes to indexing, filtering, searching etc." are clearly wrong.
It seems very clear that it is you who knows some vaguely relevant bit of trivia, but actually have no clue about the subject in general, and try to make up for that in arrogance. Which is, honestly, pretty embarrassing.
PostgreSQL just like most RDBMS uses filesystem as a backend. It cannot be faster than the filesystem it uses to store its data. At best, you may be able to configure it to use more caching, and then it will be "faster" when you have enough memory for caching...