You claim it's 1.5x-2x faster? Sure I might believe that despite your prohibition against benchmarks.
10x faster? You better show how your engineers pulled out that miracle.
1000x? You've either picked out a very weird edge case, used something in a way it's not meant to be used, or just made that up. Anyone who's done any serious benchmarking in a competitive space will instantly recognize that as a 'that cant be right' result.
Clickhouse has a similar claim.
If you look at https://benchmark.clickhouse.com/ and pick Clickhouse and Aurora for MySQL you get something in that ballpark. Heatwave claims to be faster than both Snowflake and Clickhouse.
OLTP != OLAP, and the sooner database vendors learn to stay in their lane and focus on one use case, the better.
I mean on the fundamentals Heatwave adds a giant memory cache / query engine in front. That alone makes it faster than anything disk based.
As to Redshift, yes, they claim it's faster than Redshift too by quite a bit.
(I use claim as it's against the ToS to benchmark it independently)
Being in-memory does not make OLAP databases faster. And typically, "in-memory" is a disadvantage and a limiting factor in OLAP database architecture.
I have a presentation on this topic: https://presentations.clickhouse.com/meetup53/optimizations/
It is similar to how frequently someone says "lock-free" to highlight imaginary performance advantages. If someone says a database engine is fast because it is in-memory and lock-free, it smells wrong.
If you’re looking for benchmarks of the same classes of software, among techempower benchmarks, the fastest on the charts are often well over 1000x faster.
Being 1000x slower than shit needs to be is, very literally, the default state of the vast majority of software today. I don’t even blink at 1000x claims cause that’s just the standard gains you get over popular software.
Broadly speaking, there's plenty of public benchmarks indicating that a properly-configured Aurora is within the same order magnitude as a properly-configured RDS Postgres which is in the same ballpark as MySQL. That's an indication to me that Aurora isn't fundamentally broken in some way, making a 1000x claim quite extraordinary.
You can browse virtually any modern website today and see time to full load of 15+ seconds, followed by time to link load of 7+ seconds.
Back in the days of single core pentiums, 1 second loads were considered severely broken.
Modern software on modern hardware takes tens of seconds to start, whereas software with more features in the pentium days loaded instantly.
1000x is not only not “extraordinary”, it’s actually the demonstrable norm today. You think it’s extraordinary as a result of simply not knowing what computers are capable of.
The load time of the oft-considered-bloated reddit.com for me is ~5s. Let's use that as a benchmark. If you told me you got reddit.com to load 1000x faster (5ms), then yes that is extraordinary.
You're also missing the point of my 'apples-to-apples' caveat. A modern webpage might load slowly, but it also does a lot more than a static html one-pager. Sure you might not consider that to be useful, but those features (tracking, A/B testing, ads, redundancy, CDN, etc.) are useful to someone.
But you didn’t like that, so felt compelled to ignore it.
1,000x is literally nothing when discussing modern development practices.
I’m not saying that oracle is definitely 1000x faster, just that writing off claims of 1000x cause you dislike the number is not proper in software when you can immediately find 10,000x benchmarks of two directly competing software packages.
All I'm saying is that if you're approaching a benchmark between serious competitors providing similar functionality used in the intended way, you almost never see 1000x+ performance differences.
This isn't the open source MySQL being compared. MySQL Heatwave is an in-memory analytics cluster that works as a MySQL plugin. It's cloud only.
In a way it's similar to AlloyDB from GCP, which has similar style claims (maybe not 1000x)
There's no way you're seeing a >1000x speed difference in Python/Ruby/JS and C/C++/Rust/Zig/D without building some heavily contrived comparisons. That is not a normal differential.
The "high-level" languages are slower, certainly, but usually only on a single order of magnitude.