points by anonymous908213 3 days ago | 0 comments
I don't consider a cheater downplaying their cheating to resolve the fact that they cheated, no. Every cheater has a defense when caught, and theirs was not convincing. At this point I think the only thing that could redeem their brand would be paying for a Jepsen analysis to verify pgrust is as good as they claim it is; I have zero reason to trust the words from the horse's mouth.
> We clarified with the author - while the binary had signs of optimization for specific benchmark queries, we have a reason to believe that the actual runtime didn't use per-query kernels... The usage of a query condition cache and cached statistics per granule is legitimate. The submission of a closed source preview version fine-tuned for benchmark was shady nevertheless. However, the new submission #2751 should move us post all the concerns.
Submitting an incomplete, closed-source preview build was a mistake on my part. Since then, we open-sourced a new version with full SQL support, ClickHouse merged it back into ClickBench, and the new version actually runs 7% faster (geomean) than the preview build that was removed.
[0] https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickBench/pull/2165