[BENCH] Real-world query performance comparison
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 211
- Forks
- 58
- Avg merge
- 1d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 6
Description
`examples/ctable/real_world.py` exists but is a fairly raw script. There is no self-contained example that clearly shows what performance gain SUMMARY indexes provide over a full scan, or how block size affects that gain — which is the most common question users will have after enabling auto-indexing.
Suggested work: Write `bench/ctable/summary_index_perf.py` that:
- Generates a synthetic CTable with a few million rows and numeric columns
- Runs the same where() query three ways: no index, SUMMARY at chunk granularity, SUMMARY at block granularity
- Prints a clean results table (rows scanned, time, speedup)
- Includes comments explaining the trade-offs
Ideally, it should work without any external dataset so it can be run immediately after install, but using an accessible dataset is also an option.
Contributor guide
Research direction
Read examples/ctable/real_world.py first, then create bench/ctable/summary_index_perf.py. Run the self-contained benchmark after installing the project and compare the same where() query with no index, SUMMARY at chunk granularity, and SUMMARY at block granularity. Done means a clean table reports rows scanned, time, and speedup, with comments explaining the trade-offs.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- data, performance
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 68/100