As someone who tried doing things like condition pushdown, transpiling from one language to another, etc, this is really impressive. Correctly pushing subqueries while preserving the semantics of the original database is something I can't imagine I could've ever achieved
> December's headline feature was teaching the planner to push a whole correlated EXISTS subquery down as a single LEFT SEMI JOIN instead of a nested loop with one ClickHouse round trip per outer row. This moved the needle from 3 of 22 TPC-H queries all the way to 12.
LLMs sure love throwing in archaic expressions such as "move the needle". The abrupt contrast in jargons is so unpleasant and keeps throwing me off right in the middle of reading.
As someone who tried doing things like condition pushdown, transpiling from one language to another, etc, this is really impressive. Correctly pushing subqueries while preserving the semantics of the original database is something I can't imagine I could've ever achieved
Please consider comparing pg_clickhouse to pgrust.
https://malisper.me/how-we-made-postgres-hundreds-of-times-f...
They're not really compatable. Your link already compares pgrust & clickhouse. A comparison would not be by using postgres_fdw from postgres to pgrust
> December's headline feature was teaching the planner to push a whole correlated EXISTS subquery down as a single LEFT SEMI JOIN instead of a nested loop with one ClickHouse round trip per outer row. This moved the needle from 3 of 22 TPC-H queries all the way to 12.
LLMs sure love throwing in archaic expressions such as "move the needle". The abrupt contrast in jargons is so unpleasant and keeps throwing me off right in the middle of reading.
LLMs have provided the uncanny valley to writing.