Meh. They used 448 cores to count the frequency of bit patterns of some small length in a probably more or less continuous block of memory. They had 57,756,221,440 total rows, that are 128,920,138 rows per core. If the data set contained 256 or less different stock symbols, then the task boils down to finding the byte histogram of a 123 MiB block of memory. My several years old laptop does this with the most straight forward C# implementation in 170 ms. That is less than a factor of 4 away from their 45.1 ms and given that AVX-512 can probably process 64 bytes at a time, we should have quite a bit room to spare for all the other steps involved in processing the query.
Don't get me wrong, in some sense it is really impressive that we reached that level of processing power and that this database engine can optimize that query down to counting bytes and generating highly performant code to do so, but as an indicator that this database can process trillions of rows per second it is just a publicity stunt. Sure, it can do it with this setup and this query, but don't be to surprised if you don't get anywhere near that with other queries.
> My several years old laptop does this with the most straight forward C# implementation in 170 ms.
Sure, but writing a custom C# program for each query on data that has been pre-formatted in the most optimal manner for that program is not really comparable to writing a bog standard SQL query.
I am not sure I understand what you want to say but I assume you want to say that what I did was kind of cheating because I wrote code tailored to that problem and to work on data in a format that makes that problem rather easy? Correct me if I am wrong.
But they did exactly the same just that the query planer, optimizer, and compiler generated the code from the SQL query. They still picked a data set, a physical layout of that data set, and a query that would result in maximum throughput. That was not any random SQL query, it was a carefully picked one, chosen because it would be able to take advantage of all possible optimizations.
Don't get me wrong, in some sense it is really impressive that we reached that level of processing power and that this database engine can optimize that query down to counting bytes and generating highly performant code to do so, but as an indicator that this database can process trillions of rows per second it is just a publicity stunt. Sure, it can do it with this setup and this query, but don't be to surprised if you don't get anywhere near that with other queries.