MySQL's EXPLAIN output says that it's using the indexes. PostgreSQL's EXPLAIN output says that it's _not_ (and from what I can tell so far, this is a deliberate design decision by PostgreSQL developers). r17 "loses" to MySQL on one query and "wins" on the other. So I agree that r17 has a much harder job competing against indexed data...but with r17 you didn't have to wait to create the index....not such a big deal for OLTP, a much bigger deal with OLAP.
I would like to redo the bakeoff(s) with compressed InnoDB tables but as they can take several days to run and life is short, first I should focus on Hadoop as we both agree that is more relevant.
Re the data size issue: the 54GB raw data set compresses to 28GB. The data generator I use creates data that's more random than the "real world" and so doesn't compress very well...makes life harder for r17, which is what I want. The smaller data set for the SSD test compresses to about 13GB, which isn't ideal I agree...I should have bought a larger SSD, I didn't think that MySQL would make so many large temporary files :). To mitigate this issue I ensured that the data set was _not_ cached before I ran the r17 script.
I am very keen to find out the truth about r17's usefulness, thanks for your part in that. For the next bakeoff I'll provide more details about methods and machine behavior.