The goal here is not to claim that it is faster, though (it isn't, in a lot of other things it is slower and if you run cargo bench you will see)
It is to highlight that we already reached a good level of performance this early in the project.
Your claim about the programming language having no impact is just false, though. It's exactly what people said back in 2015 when we released Scylla. It was already false then, it is even more false now.
The main reason is that storage is so incredibly fast today, the CPU architecture (of which the language is a part) does make a lot of difference.
Yo glommer, I am ... very surprised to see any benchmark beat the micro-tuned sqlite so early, congrats. Where do you think rust is picking up the extra 100ns or so from a full table scan?
> It is to highlight that we already reached a good level of performance this early in the project.
This is the right thing to do. It's a pity so many projects don't keep an eye on performance from the very first day. Getting high performing product is a process, not a single task you apply at the end. Especially in a performance critical system like a database, if you don't pay attention to performance and instead you delay optimizing till the end, at the end of the day you'll need to do a major rewrite.
thanks. I am sad, but not that surprised, that a lot of people here are interpreting this as we claiming that we're already faster than sqlite all over.
I don't even care about being faster than sqlite, just not being slower, this early, is already the win I'm looking for.
It is to highlight that we already reached a good level of performance this early in the project.
Your claim about the programming language having no impact is just false, though. It's exactly what people said back in 2015 when we released Scylla. It was already false then, it is even more false now.
The main reason is that storage is so incredibly fast today, the CPU architecture (of which the language is a part) does make a lot of difference.