← Back to context Comment by sscaryterry 3 hours ago Good read, but "70x" is always misleading. 4 comments sscaryterry Reply robbie-c 3 hours ago In what way? This was a geometric mean of the improvements from a small test corpus. In production, where it only parses longer SQL that didn't hit the parser cache, the mean parse time went down by 454x, across millions of parses. hyperpape 2 hours ago Sounds like the real number is 454x faster, not 70x. Checkmate, nerd! sscaryterry 2 hours ago Go read my message again. Every time somebody states it is X time faster, and its the headline, it is pure clickbait.Yes, you have benchmarks, they will always be synthetic. I'm not dismissing the work, just the selling of it.You have succeeded though, I did click on it. I even said "Good read" :) robbie-c 2 hours ago :DI was hoping to avoid the criticism that I was picking the most favourable number and being misleading!
robbie-c 3 hours ago In what way? This was a geometric mean of the improvements from a small test corpus. In production, where it only parses longer SQL that didn't hit the parser cache, the mean parse time went down by 454x, across millions of parses. hyperpape 2 hours ago Sounds like the real number is 454x faster, not 70x. Checkmate, nerd! sscaryterry 2 hours ago Go read my message again. Every time somebody states it is X time faster, and its the headline, it is pure clickbait.Yes, you have benchmarks, they will always be synthetic. I'm not dismissing the work, just the selling of it.You have succeeded though, I did click on it. I even said "Good read" :) robbie-c 2 hours ago :DI was hoping to avoid the criticism that I was picking the most favourable number and being misleading!
hyperpape 2 hours ago Sounds like the real number is 454x faster, not 70x. Checkmate, nerd! sscaryterry 2 hours ago Go read my message again. Every time somebody states it is X time faster, and its the headline, it is pure clickbait.Yes, you have benchmarks, they will always be synthetic. I'm not dismissing the work, just the selling of it.You have succeeded though, I did click on it. I even said "Good read" :) robbie-c 2 hours ago :DI was hoping to avoid the criticism that I was picking the most favourable number and being misleading!
sscaryterry 2 hours ago Go read my message again. Every time somebody states it is X time faster, and its the headline, it is pure clickbait.Yes, you have benchmarks, they will always be synthetic. I'm not dismissing the work, just the selling of it.You have succeeded though, I did click on it. I even said "Good read" :)
robbie-c 2 hours ago :DI was hoping to avoid the criticism that I was picking the most favourable number and being misleading!
In what way? This was a geometric mean of the improvements from a small test corpus. In production, where it only parses longer SQL that didn't hit the parser cache, the mean parse time went down by 454x, across millions of parses.
Sounds like the real number is 454x faster, not 70x. Checkmate, nerd!
Go read my message again. Every time somebody states it is X time faster, and its the headline, it is pure clickbait.
Yes, you have benchmarks, they will always be synthetic. I'm not dismissing the work, just the selling of it.
You have succeeded though, I did click on it. I even said "Good read" :)
:D
I was hoping to avoid the criticism that I was picking the most favourable number and being misleading!