db-benchmark VS Octavian.jl

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.

For some examples of people porting existing C++ Fortran libraries to julia, you should check out https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl, https://github.com/dgleich/GenericArpack.jl, https://github.com/apache/arrow-julia (just off the top of my head). These are all ports of C++ or Fortran libraries that match (or exceed) performance of the original, and in the case of Arrow.jl is faster, more general, and 10x less code.

Note that a performance-optimized Julia implementation is on par or even outperform the specialized high-performance BLAS libraries, see https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl .

If you look at the thread for your first reference, there were a large number of performance improvements suggested that resulted in a 30x speedup when combined. I'm not sure what you're looking at for your second link, but Julia is faster than Lisp in n-body, spectral norm, mandelbrot, pidigits, regex, fasta, k-nucleotide, and reverse compliment benchmarks. (8 out of 10). For Julia going faster than C/Fortran, I would direct you to https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl which is a julia program that beats MKL and openblas for matrix multiplication (which is one of the most heavily optimized algorithms in the world).

> But in the end, it's FORTRAN all the way down. Even in Julia.

That's not true. None of the Julia differential equation solver stack is calling into Fortran anymore. We have our own BLAS tools that outperform OpenBLAS and MKL in the instances we use it for (mostly LU-factorization) and those are all written in pure Julia. See https://github.com/YingboMa/RecursiveFactorization.jl, https://github.com/JuliaSIMD/TriangularSolve.jl, and https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl. And this is one part of the DiffEq performance story. The performance of this of course is all validated on https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl

Well IMO it can definitely be rewritten in Julia, and to an easier degree than python since Julia allows hooking into the compiler pipeline at many areas of the stack. It's lispy an built from the ground up for codegen, with libraries like (https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/Metatheory.jl) that provide high level pattern matching with e-graphs. The question is whether it's worth your time to learn Julia to do so.

You could also do it at the LLVM level: https://github.com/JuliaComputingOSS/llvm-cbe

For interesting takes on that, you can see https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl which relies on loopvectorization.jl to do transforms on Julia AST beyond what LLVM does. Because of that, Octavian.jl beats openblas on many linalg benchmarks

The initial results are that libraries like LoopVectorization can already generate optimal micro-kernels, and is competitive with MKL (for square matrix-matrix multiplication) up to around size 512. With help on macro-kernel side from Octavian, Julia is able to outperform MKL for sizes up to to 1000 or so (and is about 20% slower for bigger sizes). https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl.

> The biggest reason is because some function of the high level language is incompatible with the application domain. Like garbage collection in hot or real-time code or proprietary compilers for processors. Julia does not solve these problems.

The presence of garbage collection in julia is not a problem at all for hot, high performance code. There's nothing stopping you from manually managing your memory in julia.

The easiest way would be to just preallocate your buffers and hold onto them so they don't get collected. Octavian.jl is a BLAS library written in julia that's faster than OpenBLAS and MKL for small matrices and saturates to the same speed for very large matrices [1]. These are some of the hottest loops possible!

For true, hard-real time, yes julia is not a good choice but it's perfectly fine for soft realtime.

[1] https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl/issues/24#...

If you want performance benchmarks vs Fortran, https://benchmarks.sciml.ai/html/MultiLanguage/wrapper_packa... has benchmarks with Julia out-performing highly optimized Fortran DiffEq solvers, and https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/Octavian.jl shows that pure Julia BLAS implementations can compete with MKL and openBLAS, which are among the most heavily optimized pieces of code ever written. Furthermore, Julia has been used on some of the world's fastest super-computers (in the performance critical bits), which as far as I know isn't true of Swift/Kotlin/C#.

Expressiveness is hard to judge objectively, but in my opinion at least, Multiple Dispatch is a massive win for writing composable, re-usable code, and there really isn't anything that compares on that front to Julia.