hyperlearn VS db-benchmark

I agree fully - what do you suggest then? OSS the entire code base and using AGPL3? I tried that with https://github.com/danielhanchen/hyperlearn to no avail - we couldn't even monetize it at all, so I just OSSed everything.

I listed all the research articles and methods in Hyperlearn which in the end were gobbled up by other packages.

We still have to cover life expenses and stuff sadly as a startup.

Do you have any suggestions how we could go about this? We thought maybe an actual training / inference platform, and not even OSSing any code, but we decided against this, so we OSSed some code.

Ay suggestions are welcome!

Good point - the main issue is we encountered this exact issue with our old package Hyperlearn (https://github.com/danielhanchen/hyperlearn).

I OSSed all the code to the community - I'm actually an extremely open person and I love contributing to the OSS community.

The issue was the package got gobbled up by other startups and big tech companies with no credit - I didn't want any cash from it, but it stung and hurt really bad hearing other startups and companies claim it was them who made it faster, whilst it was actually my work. It hurt really bad - as an OSS person, I don't want money, but just some recognition for the work.

I also used to accept and help everyone with their writing their startup's software, but I never got paid or even any thanks - sadly I didn't expect the world to be such a hostile place.

So after a sad awakening, I decided with my brother instead of OSSing everything, we would first OSS something which is still very good - 5X faster training is already very reasonable.

I'm all open to other suggestions on how we should approach this though! There are no evil intentions - in fact I insisted we OSS EVERYTHING even the 30x faster algos, but after a level headed discussion with my brother - we still have to pay life expenses no?

If you have other ways we can go about this - I'm all ears!! We're literally making stuff up as we go along!

Hello everyone!! It's been a while!! Years back I released Hyperlearn https://github.com/danielhanchen/hyperlearn. It has 1.2K Github stars, where I made tonnes of algos faster:

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.