HTTP.jl VS db-benchmark

The req.url field contains the URL of the received request, the req.method field contains request method, like GET or POST, the req.body field contains the POST body of the request in binary format. HTTP request object contains much other information. All this you can find in HTTP.jl documentation. Our web application will only check the request method. If the received request is a POST request, it will parse req.body to JSON object and send the data from this object to the isSurvived function to make a prediction and return it to the client browser. For all other request types, it will just return the content of the index.html file, to display the web interface. This is how the whole source of titanic.jl web service looks:

If you want to just get the html of a website whose url you already have you can make requests from the http.jl package. https://juliaweb.github.io/HTTP.jl/stable/

HTTP.jl and Gumbo.jl for web-scraping

I haven't seen that tutorial, but I agree that HTTP.jl, Gumbo.jl, and Cascadia.jl are the way. I used them to export public wishlists from bookdepository, which has no API nor a built in exporting tool.

I find some of the library documentation hard to understand. Compare http.jl with python's requests, for example. Something as core as HTTP requests should have clear docs with tonnes of examples. Part of this is also a personal dislike of documenter.jl styling. Idk why the contrast is so low – would prefer a standard readthedocs theme.

Real-world performance is complicated since data science covers a lot of use cases.

If you're just reading a small CSV to do analysis on it, then there will be no human-perceptible difference between Polars and Pandas. If you're reading a larger CSV with 100k rows, there still won't be much of a perceptible difference.

Per this (old) benchmark, there are differences once you get into 500MB+ territory: https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/

I do think it was important for duckdb to put out a new version of the results as the earlier version of that benchmark [1] went dormant with a very old version of duckdb with very bad performance, especially against polars.

[1] https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33270638 :

> Apache Ballista and Polars do Apache Arrow and SIMD.

> The Polars homepage links to the "Database-like ops benchmark" of {Polars, data.table, DataFrames.jl, ClickHouse, cuDF, spark, (py)datatable, dplyr, pandas, dask, Arrow, DuckDB, Modin,} but not yet PostgresML? https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/ *

LLM -> Vector database: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_database

/? inurl:awesome site:github.com "vector database"

I agree with your conclusion but want to add that switching from Julia may not make sense either.

According to these benchmarks: https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/, DF.jl is the fastest library for some things, data.table for others, polars for others. Which is fastest depends on the query and whether it takes advantage of the features/properties of each.

For what it's worth, data.table is my favourite to use and I believe it has the nicest ergonomics of the three I spoke about.

Same. Numba does wonders for me in most scenarios. Yesterday I've discovered pola-rs and looks like I will add it to the stack. It's API is similar to pandas. Have a look at the benchmarks of cuDF, spark, dask, pandas compared to it: Benchmarks

The syntax has similarities with dplyr in terms of the way you chain operations, and it’s around an order of magnitude faster than pandas and dplyr (there’s a nice benchmark here). It’s also more memory-efficient and can handle larger-than-memory datasets via streaming if needed.

If interested in benchmarks comparing different dataframe implementations, here is one:

https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/

Bad examples. Both numpy and pandas are notoriously un-optimized packages, losing handily to pretty much all their competitors (R, Julia, kdb+, vaex, polars). See https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/ for a partial comparison.