PackageCompiler.jl VS db-benchmark

Yes, julia can be called from other languages rather easily, Julia functions can be exposed and called with a C-like ABI [1], and then there's also various packages for languages like Python [2] or R [3] to call Julia code.

With PackageCompiler.jl [4] you can even make AOT compiled standalone binaries, though these are rather large. They've shrunk a fair amount in recent releases, but they're still a lot of low hanging fruit to make the compiled binaries smaller, and some manual work you can do like removing LLVM and filtering stdlibs when they're not needed.

Work is also happening on a more stable / mature system that acts like StaticCompiler.jl [5] except provided by the base language and people who are more experienced in the compiler (i.e. not a janky prototype)

[1] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/embedding/

[2] https://pypi.org/project/juliacall/

[3] https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/JuliaCall/

[4] https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl

[5] https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl

One of Julia's Achilles heels is standalone, ahead-of-time compilation. Technically this is already possible [1], [2], but there are quite a few limitations when doing this (e.g. "Hello world" is 150 MB [7]) and it's not an easy or natural process.

The immature AoT capabilities are a huge pain to deal with when writing large code packages or even when trying to make command line applications. Things have to be recompiled each time the Julia runtime is shut down. The current strategy in the community to get around this seems to be "keep the REPL alive as long as possible" [3][4][5][6], but this isn't a viable option for all use cases.

Until Julia has better AoT compilation support, it's going to be very difficult to develop large scale programs with it. Version 1.9 has better support for caching compiled code, but I really wish there were better options for AoT compiling small, static, standalone executables and libraries.

[1]: https://julialang.github.io/PackageCompiler.jl/dev/

Doesn’t work on Windows, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl does.

Also, you can precompile a whole package and just ship the binary. We do this all of the time.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl

And getting things precompiled: https://sciml.ai/news/2022/09/21/compile_time/

You can have a look at PackageCompiler.jl

I think by PackageManager here you mean package compiler, and yes these improvements do not need a 2.0. v1.8 included a few things to in the near future allow for building binaries without big dependencies like LLVM, and finishing this work is indeed slated for the v1.x releases. Saying "we are not doing a 2.0" is precisely saying that this is more important than things which change the user-facing language semantics.

And TTFP does need to be addressed. It's a current shortcoming of the compiler that native and LLVM code is not cached during the precompilation stages. If such code is able to precompile into binaries, then startup time would be dramatically decreased because then a lot of package code would no longer have to JIT compile. Tim Holy and Valentin Churavy gave a nice talk at JuliaCon 2022 about the current progress of making this work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnsONc9DYg0 .

This is all tied up with startup time and are all in some sense the same issue. Currently, the only way to get LLVM code cached, and thus startup time essentially eliminated, is to build it into what's called the "system image". That system image is the binary that package compiler builds (https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl). Julia then ships with a default system image that includes the standard library in order to remove the major chunk of code that "most" libraries share, which is why all of Julia Base works without JIT lag. However, that means everyone wants to have their thing, be it sparse matrices to statistics, in the standard library so that it gets the JIT-lag free build by default. This means the system image is huge, which is why PackageCompiler, which is simply a system for building binaries by appending package code to the system image, builds big binaries. What needs to happen is for packages to be able to precompile in a way that then caches LLVM and native code. Then there's no major compile time advantage to being in the system image, which will allow things to be pulled out of the system image to have a leaner Julia Base build without major drawbacks, which would then help make the system compile. That will then make it so that an LLVM and BLAS build does not have to be in every binary (which is what takes up most of the space and RAM), which would then allow Julia to much more comfortably move beyond the niche of scientific computing.

You're probably dancing around the edges of what [PackageCompiler.jl](https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl) is capable of targeting. There are a few new capabilities coming online, namely [separating codegen from runtime](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/41936) and [compiling small static binaries](https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl), but you're likely to hit some snags on the bleeding edge.

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.