That is an incorrect and baseless accusation, we had nothing to do with "Postgres (tuned)". My commits are only in the `hydra` folder. There are no restrictions on how you set up the benchmark in Clickbench and the settings we use there are analogous with what we use on our cloud service for a similar sized instance.

As the linked post points out, the main 'advantage' of the "tuned" benchmark is the indexes, which are tuned specifically to the queries in the benchmark. We do not use indexes in our version of the benchmark, aside from the primary key (which actually provides no performance advantage).

I apologize for falsely claiming that it was Hydra devs who committed Postgres config.

However, I think problem stands: it is your main marketing pitch to compare HydraDB to undertuned PG, it is right on landing page of your project.

> the main 'advantage' of the "tuned" benchmark is the indexes

I am not sure which post you referred to, but unless you or someone else analyzed execution plans for all PG queries in that benchmark and verified that indexes are actually used, it is just speculations without evidence.

Another issue with this comparison is that ClickBench is toy micro-benchmark with just 100M records. Increasing datasize may or may not be beneficial for HydraDB.

I did not know that... That's very disingenuous! We'll make sure to keep this in mind as we make our own comparisons. We haven't tuned ParadeDB at all in our published ClickBench benchmarks, so it should be more representative